Filing # 34801581 E-Filed 11/23/2015 05:53:31 PM

Filing # 34801581 E-Filed 11/23/2015 05:53:31 PM IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SEVENTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO.: CACE 15-000072 BRADLEY J. EDWARDS and PAUL G. CASSELL, Plaintiffs, vs. ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ, Defendant. PLAINTIFFS/COUNTERCLAIM DEFENDANT EDWARDS AND CASSELL'S RESPONSE TO DERSHOWITZ'S MOTION TO DETERMINE CONFIDENTIALITY OF COURT RECORDS Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants Bradley J. Edwards and Paul G. Cassell, by and through their undersigned attorneys, hereby file this response to Dershowitz's Motion to Determine Confidentiality of Court Records. The records at issue are not confidential, and so the Court should deny Dershowitz's motion in its entirety. The court records at issue are three court filings by attorneys Edwards and Cassell in which they recite their client's (Mr. allegations that she was sexually abused by Dershowitz. These records are hardly "confidential" in this defamation case, where the parties have claims and counterclaims about these sexual abuse Allegations. Rather, these records are an important part of this case, since they not only support the conclusion that Dershowitz abused Ms. a l ut also indisputably establish Edwards and Cassell's strong basis for filing the allegations on her behalf. Moreover, contrary to assertions made in Dershowitz's motion, these documents have never been found to be "confidential" by any other court. And Dershowitz has repeatedly referred to EFTA01116693 Edwards, Bradley vs. Dershowitz Case No.: CACE 15-000072 Edwards and Cassells Response to Dershowitz's Motion to Determine Confidentiality of Court Records Page 2 of 20 these documents, not only in defamatory statements broadcast worldwide, but also in his pleadings before this Court and in recent depositions. Indeed, Dershowitz said in his media interviews that he wants "everything to be made public" and implied that Edwards and Cassell had something to hide. Accordingly, Dershowitz has failed to carry his heavy burden to justify sealing these presumptively-public documents. I. DERSHOWITZ HAS NOT JUSTIFIED SEALING ALLEGED DEFAMATORY RECORDS THAT ARE INTEGRAL TO THIS DEFAMATION CASE. In his motion, Dershowitz never recounts the heavy burden that he must carry to seal the records at issue. To be sure, Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.420 allows for the sealing of "confidential" materials. But the Rule begins by recounting the overarching principle that "[t]he public shall have access to all records of the judicial branch of government, except as provided below." Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.420(a). This rule is a codification of the Florida Supreme Court's admonition that a "a strong presumption of openness exists for all court proceedings. A trial is a public event, and the filed records of court proceedings are public records available for public examination." Barron v. Florida Freedom Newspapers, Inc., 531 So.2d 113, 118 (Fla. 1988) (emphasis added). In light of this presumption of openness, "[t]he burden of proof in [closure] proceedings shall always be on the party seeking closure." Id. To obtain a sealing order, the party seeking sealing must carry a "heavy burden." Id. Remarkably, Dershowitz fails to acknowledge these well-settled principles. More important, he even fails to cite (much less discuss) the limited substantive exceptions to this general principle of access — and which specific exception he believes applies to this EFTA01116694 Edwards, Bradley vs. Dershowitz Case No.: CACE 15-000072 Edwards and CasselIs Response to Dershowitz's Motion to Determine Confidentiality of Court Records Page 3 of 20 case. Accordingly, it is impossible for Edwards and Cassell to respond with precision to his motion. The exceptions that might arguably be in play in this case permit records to be maintained as confidential in order to: (1) Prevent a serious and imminent threat to the fair, impartial, and orderly administration of justice; (ii) Protect trade secrets; (iii) Protect a compelling governmental interest; (iv) Obtain evidence to determine legal issues in a case; (v) Avoid substantial injury to innocent third parties; (vi) Avoid substantial injury to a party by disclosure of matters protected by a common law or privacy right not generally inherent in the specific type of proceeding sought to be closed; (vii) Comply with established public policy set forth in the Florida or United States Constitution or statutes or Florida rules or case law . Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.420(c)(9) (codifying the holding in Barron v. Florida Freedom Newspapers, Inc., 531 So.2d 113 (Fla. 1988)). The only exception that seems to even arguably apply here is exception vi, which itself specifically provides that confidentiality is appropriate only where disclosure is "not generally inherent in the specific type of proceeding sought to be closed" (emphasis added). Of course, this lawsuit is a defamation action — involving a defamation claim by Edwards and Cassell and a defamation counterclaim by Dershowitz. Disclosure, discussion, and debate about the defamatory statements at issue lies at the heart of the case. Accordingly, disclosure of these materials is "inherent" in the case itself. The principle that defamatory material in a defamation case cannot be sealed is recognized in Carnegie v. Tedder, 698 So.2d 1310 (2d DCA 1997). Carnegie involved a claim and counterclaim between two parties (Carnegie and Tedder), one of whom alleged that disclosure of EFTA01116695 Edwards, Bradley vs. Dershowitz Case No.: CACE I5-000072 Edwards and Cassells Response to Dershowitz's Motion to Determine Confidentiality of Court Records Page 4 of 20 the materials in the records would be harmful to his professional reputation. Carnegie recited subsection vi's restriction on release of materials involving a privacy right, but noted that "statements Tedder alleged were defamatory and damaging were allegations in Camegie's counterclaim for which she seeks damages. These matters were not peripheral to the lawsuit; they were inherent to it." Id. at 1312. Of course, exactly the same principle applies here: Edwards and Cassell for their client M e not peripheral to this lawsuit — they are inherent to it. To see how "inherent" the sexual abuse allegations are to this lawsuit, the Court need look no further than Dershowitz's counterclaim in this case. Count I of Dershowitz's Counterclaim (styled as "False Allegations in the Joinder Motion") contends that Edwards and Cassell should pay him damages because they "filed a pleading in the Federal Action titled `Jane Doe #3 and Jane Doe #4's Motion Pursuant to Rule 21 for Joinder in Action' . . . ." Dershowitz Counterclaim at ¶ 14. Dershowitz's Counterclaim then goes on to quote at length from the Joinder Motion. His counterclaim contains, for example, this paragraph recounting the allegations: The Joinder Motion then goes on to allege — without any supporting evidence — as follows: sexual abuse allegations filed by attorneys One such powerful individual that Epstein forced then-minor Jane Doe #3 to have sexual relations with was former Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz, a close friend of Epstein's and well-known criminal defense attorney. Epstein required Jane Doe #3 to have sexual relations with Dershowitz on numerous occasions while she was a minor, not only in Florida but also on private planes, in New York, New Mexico, and the U.S. Virgin EFTA01116696 Edwards, Bradley vs. Dershowitz Case No.: CACE 15-000072 Edwards and Cassells Response to Dershowitz's Motion to Determine Confidentiality of Court Records Page 5 of 20 Islands. In addition to being a participant in the abuse of Jane Doe #3 and other minors, Dershowitz was an eye-witness to the sexual abuse of many other minors by Epstein and several of Epstein's coconspirators. Dershowitz would later play a significant role in negotiating the [Non-Prosecution Agreement] on Epstein's behalf. Indeed, Dershowitz helped negotiate an agreement that provided immunity from federal prosecution in the Southern District of Florida not only to Epstein, but also to "any potential coconspirators of Epstein." Thus, Dershowitz helped negotiate an agreement with a provision that provided protection for himself against criminal prosecution in Florida for sexually abusing Jane Doe #3. Because this broad immunity wouldhave been controversial if disclosed, Dershowitz (along with other members of Epstein's defense team) and the Government tried to keep the immunity provision secret from all of Epstein's victims and the general public, even though such secrecy violated the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Dershowitz Counterclaim at 1115 (quoting Joinder Motion at 4). Remarkably, having quoted at length from the Joinder Motion in his Counterclaim in this case, Dershowitz now seeks to have that very same language from the Joinder Motion deemed "confidential" and sealed. Compare Counterclaim at ¶15 (block quotation above) with Motion to Determine Confidentiality, Exhibit A at 4 (composite exhibit with proposed "confidential" document that includes paragraph beginning "[o]ne such powerful individual that Epstein forced then-minor Jane Doe #3 to have sexual relations with was former Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz, a close friend of Epstein's . . . ."). Dershowitz cannot come before this Court and file a counterclaim seeking damages from Edwards and Cassell for alleged defamatory statements and then ask to have those very same statements placed under seal as "confidential." See Barron v. Florida Freedom Newspapers, 531 So.2d at 119 ("although generally protected by one's privacy right, medical reports and history are no longer protected EFTA01116697 Edwards, Bradley vs. Dershowitz Case No.: CACE 15-000072 Edwards and Cassells Response to Dershowitz's Motion to Determine Confidentiality of Court Records Page 6 of 20 when the medical condition becomes an integral part of the civil proceeding, particularly when the condition is asserted as an issue by the party seeking closure" (emphasis added)). H. JUDGE MARRA'S ORDER IN HIS CASE DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT THE RECORDS BE SEALED IN THIS CASE. Dershowitz also appears to contend that Judge Marra's order striking some of the materials from the records at issue somehow requires that these stricken materials be kept confidential in this case. Dershowitz's argument misunderstands both the scope of Judge Marra's order and its effect in this case. His argument rests on a truncated — and misleading -- description of the events surrounding Judge Marra's ruling striking certain documents. A more complete description makes clear that Judge Marra has not determined the documents are somehow "confidential" even in the federal Crime Victims' Rights Act case — much less in this separate state defamation action. Edwards and Cassell filed the federal case pro bono on behalf of two young women who were sexually abused as underage girls by Dershowitz's close personal friend — Jeffrey Epstein. In 2008, Edwards and Casell filed a petition to enforce the rights of "Jane Doe No. 1" and "Jane Doe No. 2" under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), 18 U.S.C. § 3771, alleging that the Government had failed to provide them rights with regard to a plea arrangement it was pursuing with Epstein. Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2 v. United States, No. 9:08-cv-80736 (S.D. Fla.). In the course of that case, on October 11, 2011, the victims filed discovery requests with the Government, including requests specifically seeking information about Dershowitz, Prince Andrew, and others. Further efforts from the Government to avoid any discovery EFTA01116698 Edwards, Bradley vs. Dershowitz Case No.: CACE 15-000072 Edwards and Cassells Response to Dershowitz's Motion to Determine Confidentiality of Court Records Page 7 of 20 followed (see generally Docket Entry or "DE" 225-1 at 4-5), ultimately leading to a further Court ruling in June 2013 that the Government should produce documents. DE 189. The Government then produced about 1,500 pages of largely irrelevant materials to the victims (DE 225-I at 5), while simultaneously submitting 14,825 pages of relevant materials under seal to the Court. The Government claimed that these pages were "privileged" for various reasons, attaching an abbreviated privilege log. While these discovery issues were pending, in the summer of 2014, Edwards and Cassell, contacted Government counsel to request their agreement to add two additional victims to the case, including Ms. who was identified in court pleadings as "Jane Doe No. 3"). Edwards and Cassell sought to have her added to the case via stipulation, which would have avoided the need to include any detailed facts about her abuse. Weeks went by and the Government — as it had done on a similar request for a stipulation to add another victim — did not respond to counsel's request for a stipulation. Finally, on December 10, 2014, despite having had four months to provide a position, the Government responded by email to counsel that it was seeking more time, indicating that the Government understood that victims' counsel might need to file a motion with the court on the matter immediately. DE 291 at 3-5. Rather than file a motion immediately, victims' counsel waited and continued to press the Government for a stipulation. See id. at 5. Finally, on December 23, 2014 — more than four months after the initial request for a stipulated joinder into the case — the Government tersely indicated its objection, without indicating any reason: "Our position is that we oppose adding new petitioners at this stage of the litigation." See DE 291 at 5. EFTA01116699 Edwards, Bradley vs. Dershowitz Case No.: CACE 15-000072 Edwards and Cassells Response to Dershowitz's Motion to Determine Confidentiality of Court Records Page 8 of 20 Because the Government now contested the joinder motion, Edwards and Cassell prepared a more detailed pleading explaining the justification for granting the motion. One week after receiving the Government's objection, on December 30, 2014, Ms. i.e., Jane Doe No. 3) and Jane Doe No. 4 filed a motion (and later a corrected motion) seeking to join the case. DE 279 and DE 280. (Note: DE 280 is the first of the three documents Dershowitz seeks to have declared "confidential" in this case.) Uncertain as to the basis for the Government's objection, the motion briefly proffered the circumstances that would qualify the two women as "victims" eligible to assert rights under the CVRA. See 18 U.S.C. 3771(e) (defining "crime victim" protected under the Act). With regard to Ms. the motion indicated that when she was a minor, Jeffrey Epstein had trafficked her to Dershowitz and Prince Andrew (among others) for sexual purposes. Jane Doe No. 3 stated that she was prepared to prove her proffer. See DE 280 at 3 ("If allowed to join this action, Jane Doe No. 3 would prove the following . . . . "). The motion also provided specific reasons why Jane Doe No. 3's participation was relevant to the case, including the pending discovery issues regarding Dershowitz and Prince Andrew. DE 280 at 9-10 (explaining several reasons participation of new victims was relevant to existing issues). After the motion was filed, various news organizations published articles about it. Dershowitz also made numerous media statements about the filing, including calling Jane Doe No. 3 "a serial liar" who "has lied through her teeth about many world leaders." http://www.ctui.com/2015/0 I /06/us/dershowitz-sex-allegationt Dershowitz also repeatedly called Edwards and Cassell "two sleazy, unprofessional, disbarable lawyers." Id. On EFTA01116700 Edwards, Bradley vs. Dershowitz Case No.: CACE 15-000072 Edwards and Cassells Response to Dershowitz's Motion to Determine Confidentiality of Court Records Page 9 of 20 January 5, 2015, Dershowitz filed a motion to intervene to argue to have the allegations stricken. DE 282. Dershowitz also argued that Ms. M had not provided a sworn affidavit attesting to the truth of her allegations. On January 21, 2015, Edwards and Cassell filed a response for Mad Jane Doe No. 4. DE 291. (Note: This is the second of the three documents Dershowitz seeks to have kept under seal here.) The response enumerated nine M s specific reasons why Ms. pecific allegations against Dershowitz were relevant to the case, including the fact that Ms eeded to establish that she was a "victim" in the case, that pending discovery requests concerning Dershowitz-specific documents were pending, and that Dershowitz's role as a defense attorney in the case was highly relevant to the motive for the Government and defense counsel to conceal the plea deal from the victims. DE 291 at 17-26 & n.17. The response included a detailed affidavit from Ms=lo ut the sexual abuse she had suffered from Epstein, Dershowitz, and other powerful persons. DE 291-1. On February 6, 2015, Edwards and Cassell filed a further pleading (and affidavit from Ms ee DE 291- 1) in support of her motion to intervene. (Note: this affidavit is the third of the three documents Dershowitz seeks to have declared confidential.) On April 7, 2015, Judge Marra denied Ms. Giuffre's motion to join the case. Judge Marra concluded that "at this juncture in the proceedings" details about the sexual abuse she had suffered was unnecessary to making a determination "of whether Jane Doe 3 and Jane Doe 4 should be permitted to join [the other victims'] claim that the Government violated their rights under the CVRA. The factual details regarding with whom and where the Jane Does engaged in sexual activities are impertinent to this central claim (i.e., that they were known victims of Mr. EFTA01116701 Edwards, Bradley vs. Dershowitz Case No.: CACE 15-000072 Edwards and Cassells Response to Dershowitz's Motion to Determine Confidentiality of Court Records Page 10 of 20 Epstein and the Government owed them CVRA duties), especially considering that the details involve non-parties who are not related to the respondent Government." DE 324 at 5 (emphasis in original). While Judge Marra struck those allegations, he emphasized that "Jane Doe 3 is free to reassert these factual details through proper evidentiary proof, should [the victims] demonstrate a good faith basis for believing that such details are pertinent to a matter presented for the Court's consideration. Judge Marra then denied Motion to join the case, a but allowed her to participate as trial witness: "The necessary 'participation' of [ . in this case can be satisfied by offering . . . properly supported — and relevant, admissible, and non-cumulative — testimony as needed, whether through testimony at trial . . . or affidavits supported in support [of] the relevancy of discovery requests." DE 324 at 8 (emphasis deleted). In a supplemental order, Judge Marra stated that the victims "may re-refile these documents omitting the stricken portions." DE 325. The victims have recently refiled the documents. In light of this history, Dershowitz is flatly incorrect when he asserts that "Judge Marra's Order appropriately precludes the unredacted documents from being re-filed in this case on the public docket." Confidentiality Motion at 3. To the contrary, the Order specifically permits factual details about Dershowitz's sexual abuse of MMD be presented in regard to pertinent matters in the federal CVRA case. And certainly nothing in Judge Marra's Order could render those documents confidential in this state defamation case, where the central issues swirl around Edwards and Cassell's good faith basis for filing the allegations. Indeed, the order is not binding in any way in this case, because it is res judicata only as to Ms. moving EFTA01116702 Edwards, Bradley vs. Dershowitz Case No.: CACE 15-000072 Edwards and Cassells Response to Dershowitz's Motion to Determine Confidentiality of Court Records Page I I of 20 party in that case), not as to her attorneys Edwards and Cassell. See Palm AFC Holdings, Inc. v. Palm Beach County, 807 So.2d 703 (4'h DCA 2002) ("In order for res judicata to apply four identities must be present: (1) identity of the thing sued for; (2) identity of the cause of action; (3) identity of persons and parties; and (4) identity of the quality or capacity of the persons for or against whom the claim is made."). III. EDWARDS AND CASSELL WILL BE PREJUDICED IF THEY ARE BARRED FROM QUOTING FROM THE RECORD WHILE DERSHOWITZ IS PERMITTED TO FREELY REFER TO THEM WHENEVER HE FINDS IT CONVENIENT. Dershowitz is also incorrect when he asserts that no prejudice will befall Edwards and Cassell if the records are placed under seal. To the contrary, placing the documents under seal would permit Dershowitz to continue to misrepresent and distort what is contained in those records while preventing Edwards and Cassell from correcting those misrepresentations. Dershowitz has repeatedly referred to details in the records when he has found it convenient to do so — treating the records as not confidential in any away. One clear example comes from Dershowitz's recent deposition, where he gratuitously injected into the record a reference to a portion of Msedavit about him watching a perform oral sex on Epstein. And then, having injected that gratuitous reference into the record, he proceeded to try to rebut the reference with confidential settlement discussions — but did so by mispresenting what another attorney (David Boies) had said during the settlement discussions. So that the Court may have the full flavor of the exchange, the narrow question to Dershowitz (by attorney Jack EFTA01116703 Edwards, Bradley vs. Dershowitz Case No.: CACE 15-000072 Edwards and Cassells Response to Dershowitz's Motion to Determine Confidentiality of Court Records Page 12 of 20 Scarola) and Dershowitz's extended answer are quoted in full — including Dershowitz's reference to the oral sex allegation that he now argues this Court should treat as "confidential": Q. [Y]ou [are] aware that years before December of 2014, when the CVRA pleading was filed, that your name had come up repeatedly in connection with Jeffrey Epstein's abuse of minors, correct? ... A. Let me answer that question. I am aware that never before 2014, end of December, was it ever, ever alleged that I had acted in any way inappropriately with regard to at I ever touched her, that I ever met her, thatilir atwit ter. I was completely aware of that. There had never been any allegation. She claims under oath that she told you that secretly in 2011, but you have produced no notes of any such conversation. You, of course, are a witness to this allegation and will be deposed as a witness to this allegation. I believe it is an entirely false allegation that she told you in 2011 that she had had any sexual contact with me. I think she's lying through her teeth when she says that. And I doubt that your notes will reveal any such information. But if she did tell you that, she would be absolutely, categorically lying. So I am completely aware that never, until the lies were put in a legal pleading at the end of Dece never alleged that I had any sexual contact wi I know that it was alleged that I was a witness to e ey pstein's alleged abuse and that was false. I was never a witness to any of Jeffrey Epstein's sexual abuse. And I wrote that to you, something that you have falsely denied. And I stand on the record. The record is clear that I have categorically denied I was ever a witness to any abuse, that I ever saw Jeffrey Epstein abusing anybody. And and the very idea that I would stand and talk to Je Epstein while he was receiving oral sex fro which she swore to under oath, is so outrageous, so preposterous, that even David Boies said he couldn't believe it was true. MS. McCAWLEY: I object. I object. I'm not going to allow you to reveal any conversations that happened in the context of a settlement discussion. THE WITNESS: Does she have standing? EFTA01116704 Edwards, Bradley vs. Dershowitz Case No.: CACE 15.000072 Edwards and Cassel Is Response to Dershowitz's Motion to Determine Confidentiality of Court Records Page 13 of 20 MS. McCAWLEY: I have a standing objection and, I'm objecting again. I'm not going to THE WITNESS: No, no, no. Does she have standing in this deposition? MR. SCOTT: Let's take a break for a minute, okay? THE WITNESS: I'm not sure she has standing. MR. SCAROLA: Are we finished with the speech? MR. SCOTT: No. If he -- MR. SCAROLA: I'd like him to finish the speech so that we can get to my question and then we can take a break. A. So the question -- the answer to your question is -- MR. SIMPSON: Wait a minute. Wait a minute. Wait a minute. Please don't disclose something that she has a right to raise that objection if she wants to. MR. SCOTT: Exactly. Deposition of Alan Dershowitz (Oct. IS, 2015) at 93-95 (attached as Exhibit 1); see Sir as also Deposition f A Dershowitz (Oct. 16, 2016) (attached Exhibit 2) (also containing discussion of Ms ffidavit). The Court should be aware that within approximately two hours of this exchange, Ms. McCawley (David Boies' law partner) released a statement on his behalf, which stated that Dershowitz was misrepresenting what happened: "Because the discussions that Mr. Boies had with Mr. Dershowitz were expressly privileged settlement discussions, Mr. Boies will not, at least at this time, describe what was actually said. However, Mr. Boies does state that Mr. EFTA01116705 Edwards, Bradley vs. Dershowitz Case No.: CACE 15.000072 Edwards and Cassells Response to Dershowitz's Motion to Determine Confidentiality of Court Records Page 14 of 20 Dershowitz description of what was said is not true." Statement of Ms. McCawley on Behalf of David Boies (Oct. 15, 2015). More broadly, the Court can readily see from this passage how Dershowitz is willing to inject into the record a part of Ms. Affidavit whenever it serves his purpose — and, indeed, to characterize the part of the affidavit as "preposterous." But then he asks this Court to place the underlying affidavit under seal, so that the Edwards and Cassell stand accused having filed a "preposterous" affidavit without anyone being able to assess the validity of Dershowitz's attack. Dershowitz has referred to the court records that he now wishes to have the Court declare confidential not only in his deposition, but also in his widely-broadcast media attacks on Edwards and Cassell. For example, Dershowitz appeared on the British Broadcasting Corporation (the BBC) and was asked about the allegations: Well, first of all they were made in court papers that they don't even ask for a hearing to try to prove them. They put them in court papers in order to immunize themselves from any consequences from a defamation suit. The story is totally made up, completely out of whole cloth. I don't know this woman. I was not at the places at the times. It is part of a pattern of made up stories against prominent people and world leaders. And the lawyers in recent statement challenged me to deny the allegations under oath. I am doing that. I am denying them under oath, thus subjecting me to a perjury prosecution were I not telling the truth. Jam now challenging them to have their client put these charges under oath and for them to put them under oath. I am also challenging them to repeat them outside of the context of court papers so that I can sue them for defamation. . . . And I will prove beyond any doubt not only that the story is totally false, but it was knowingly false: that the lawyers and the client conspired together to create a false story. That is why I am moving for their disbarment in challenges to be provided to the disciplinary committee. BBC Radio 4 - Sarah Montague (Jan. 3, 2015) (httn://www.bbc.co.uk/nrogrammes/p02a7qbc). EFTA01116706 Edwards, Bradley vs. Dershowitz Case No.: CACE 15-000072 Edwards and Cassells Response to Dershowitz's Motion to Determine Confidentiality of Court Records Page 15 of 20 Similarly, Dershowitz appeared on NBC's Today Show the morning after Edwards and Cassell made a filing for Mslay that the Edwards and Cassell — and were all "lying" in the court documents: Question from Savannah Guthrie: In legal papers from the lawyers, they say you've had, in fact, the opportunity to be deposed. Answer from Alan Dershowitz: They're lying. They're lying. Question: They show letters in which they offered to depose you. Answer: And they didn't show my letters in response saying, (a), if you ask me about my legal relationship with Epstein and I'll be happy to answer. . . . And I responded that I would be happy to be deposed if you could give me any indication that 1 would be a relevant witness . . . . They will be proved — all of them (i.e., Cassell, Edwards, and Ms. to be categorically lying and making up this story. And it will be a terrible thing or rape victims. . . . We [Epstein and Dershowitz] had an academic relationship. I was never in the presence of a single, young, underaged woman. When I was with him, it was with prominent scientists, prominent academics. And they're just — again — lying about this. I never saw him doing anything improper. I was not a participant. I was not a witness. Today Show, Jan. 22, 2015 (emphases added). As another example, in Miami Herald, Dershowitz called the Joinder Motion that he seeks to have sealed "the sleaziest legal document I have ever seen. They [Edwards and Cassell] manipulated a young, suggestible woman who was interested in money. This is a disbarrable offense, and they will be disbarred. They will rue the day they ever made this false charge against me" — i.e., Edwards and Cassell will "rue the day" they ever filed the Joinder Motion. Miami Herald (Jan. 3, 2015). EFTA01116707 Edwards, Bradley vs. Dershowitz Case No.: CACE 15-000072 Edwards and CasselIs Response to Dershowitz's Motion to Determine Confidentiality of Court Records Page 16 of 20 Most remarkably, Dershowitz took the public airwaves to represent that he wanted all of the information surrounding the allegations to "be made public," while implying that Edwards and Cassell had something to hide. For example, on the BBC he claimed that he wanted"everything to be made public": Q: Would you encourage that it now be made public? A: Of course, of course. I want everything to be made public. I want every bit of evidence in this case to be made public. I want every allegation to be made public. I want to know who else she's accused of these horrible crimes. We know that she accused Bill Clinton of being on Jeffrey Epstein's island and participating in sex orgy with underage girls. The records of the Secret Service will prove that President Clinton never set foot on that island. So that she lied. Now it's possible to have a case of mistaken identification with somebody like me. It's impossible to have a case of mistaken identification with Bill Clinton. My only feeling is that if she has lied about me, which I know to an absolute certainty she has, she should not be believed about anyone else. She's lied clearly about me, she's lied clearly about Bill Clinton. We know that. We know that she's lied about other public figures, including a former prime minister and others who she claims to have participated in sexual activities with. So I think it must be presumed that all of her allegations against Prince Andrew are false as well. I think he [Prince Andrew] should clear the air as well. If you're squeaky clean and if you have never done anything like this, you must fight back with all the resources available to you. And that's what I will do. I will not rest or stop until the world understands no only that I had nothing to do with any of this, but that she deliberately, with the connivance of her lawyer, lawyers, made up this story willfully and knowingly. BBC Radio 4 - Sarah Montague (Jan. 3, 2015) antp://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02g7lbc). In another widely-broadcast interview on CNN, Dershowitz implied that there is no evidence supporting the allegations against him: EFTA01116708 Edwards, Bradley vs. Dershowitz Case No.: CACE 15-000072 Edwards and Cassells Response to Dershowitz's Motion to Determine Confidentiality of Court Records Page 17 of 20 Ask them [Edwards and Cassell] if they have any evidence . . . . They're doing it for money. She's getting money for having sold her story. She wants to sell the book. They're trying to get into this lawsuit. They see a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. They're [Edwards and Cassell] prepared to lie, cheat, and steal. These are unethical lawyers. This is Professor Cassell who shouldn't be allowed near a student. This is Professor Cassell, who is a former federal judge, thank God he no longer wears a robe. He is essentially a crook. He is essentially somebody who's distorted the legal profession. . . . Why would he charge a person with a sterling reputation for 50 years on the basis of the word alone of a woman who is serial liar, who has lied about former Prime Ministers, former Presidents, has lied demonstrably. CNN Live (with Hala Gorani) (January 5, 2015). Of course, by placing "the evidence" in this case under seal, De 1 be free to continue to try and insinuate that Edward and Cassell — and their client, had no evidence supporting the allegations against him, even though a mountain et?: ence s ongly support negations. See Deposition of Paul Cassell (Oct 16, 2015) at 61-117 (Exhibit 3); of Pual Cassell (Oct 17, 2015) (Exhibit 4). CONCLUSION The Court should deny Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff Alan Dershowitz's motion to place documents regarding Ms. tions against him under seal. I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was sent via E-Serve to all Counsel on the attached list, this 25r° day of November, 2015. /s/ Jack Scarola Jack Scarola Florida Bar No.: 169440 Attorney E-Mail(s): Primary E-Mail: Searcy Denney S 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard EFTA01116709 Edwards, Bradley vs. Dershowitz Case No.: CACE 15.000072 Edwards and Cassells Response to Dershowitz's Motion to Determine Confidentiality of Court Records Page 18 of 20 SEAN D. REYES Utah Attorney General By: JONI J. JONES JOEL A. FERRE Assistant Utah Attorneys General Bradley J. Edwards FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. 425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 And Paul G. Cassell Pro Hac Vice Motion Pending S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah 383 S. University St. Salt Lake City, UT 84112 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Bradley J. Edwards and Paul G. Cassell COUNSEL LIST Thomas Emerson Scott, Jr., Esquire Cole Scott & Kissane P.A. 9150 S Dadeland Boulevard, Suite 1400 Miami, FL 33156 EFTA01116710 Edwards, Bradley vs. Dershowitz Case No.: CACE 15-000072 Edwards and Cassells Response to Dershowites Motion to Determine Confidentiality of Court Records Page 19 of 20 Attorneys for Defendant Richard A. Sim son ro hac vice) M E. Bor'a m hac vice) Ashley E. Eiler (pro hac vice) WILEY REIN LLP 1776 K St. NW Washington, DC 20006 EFTA01116711 Edwards, Bradley vs. Dershowitz Case No.: CACE I5-000072 Edwards and Cassells Response to Dershowitz's Motion to Determine Confidentiality of Court Records Page 20 of 20 COUNSEL LIST Sigrid Stone McCawley, Esquire 401 E Las Olas Boulevard., Suite 1200 , Esquire Thomas Emerson Scott. Jr uire ole Scott & Kissane P.A. 9150 S Dadeland Boulevard, Suite 1400 Bradle J. Edwards • uire ,... Farmer Jaffe Weissing Edwards Fistos & Lehrman, P.L. 425 N Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 Kenneth A. Sweder, E uire 131 Oliver Street Boston, MA 02110 ttomeys or an ers squire Ashley Eiler, Esquire Richard A. Simpson, Esquire IIIIIMIE 1776 K Street NW Washin on DC 20006 Attorneys or A an M.Ders towitz, Esquire Joni J. Jones, Esquire MIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIL 160 E 300 S Salt Lake City, UT 84114 I me s or at .IIIIPe I EFTA01116712 Exhibit 1 EFTA01116713 1 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SEVENTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO.: CACE 15-000072 BRADLEY J. EDWARDS and PAUL G. CASSELL„ Plaintiffs, vs. ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ, Defendant. / VIDEOTAPE DEPOSITION OF ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ VOLUME 1 Pages 1 through 179 Thursday, October 15, 2015 9:31 a.m. - 4:13 p.m. Cole Scott & Kissane 110 Southeast 6th Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida Stenographically Reported By: Kimberly Fontalvo, RPR, CLR Realtime Systems Administrator EFTA01116714 93 1 people that abused Virginia? 2 A. I told you I never asked her the question. 11:36:21 3 Q. Are you aware that years before December 11:36:48 4 of 2014, when the CVRA pleading was filed, that your 5 name had come up repeatedly in connection with 6 Jeffrey Epstein's abuse of minors, correct? 7 MR. SCOTT: Objection, form, overly broad. 11:37:16 8 A. Let me answer that question. I am aware 11:37:17 9 that never before 2014, end of December, was it 10 ever, ever alleged that I had acted in any way 11 inappropriately with regard to 12 that I ever touched her, that I ever met her, that I 13 had ever been with her. I was completely aware of 14 that. There had never been any allegation. 15 She claims under oath that she told you 11:37:48 16 that secretly in 2011, but you have produced no 17 notes of any such conversation. You, of course, are 18 a witness to this allegation and will be deposed as 19 a witness to this allegation. I believe it is an 20 entirely false allegation that she told you in 2011 21 that she had had any sexual contact with me. I 22 think she's lying through her teeth when she says 23 that. And I doubt that your notes will reveal any 24 such information. 25 But if she did tell you that, she would be 11:38:24 EFTA01116715 94 1 absolutely, categorically lying. So I am completely 2 aware that never, until the lies were put in a legal 3 pleading at the end of December 2014, it was never 4 alleged that I had any sexual contact with 5 6 I know that it was alleged that I was a 11:38:46 7 witness to Jeffrey Epstein's alleged abuse and that 8 was false. I was never a witness to any of Jeffrey 9 Epstein's sexual abuse. And I wrote that to you, 10 something that you have falsely denied. And I stand 11 on the record. The record is clear that I have 12 categorically denied I was ever a witness to any 13 abuse, that I ever saw Jeffrey Epstein abusing 14 anybody. 15 And -- and the very idea that I would 11:39:18 16 stand and talk to Jeffrey Epstein while he was 17 receiving oral sex from hich she 18 swore to under oath, is so outrageous, so 19 preposterous, that even David Boies said he couldn't 20 believe it was true. 21 MS. McCAWLEY: I object. I object. I'm 11:39:40 22 not going to allow you to reveal any 23 conversations that happened in the context of a 24 settlement discussion. 25 THE WITNESS: Does she have standing? 11:39:46 EFTA01116716 95 1 2 3 4 MS. McCAWLEY: I have a standing objection and, I'm objecting again. I'm not going to -- THE WITNESS: No, no, no. Does she have standing in this deposition? 11:39:47 11:39:49 5 MR. SCOTT: Let's take a break for a 11:39:51 6 minute, okay? 7 THE WITNESS: I'm not sure she has 11:39:54 8 standing. 9 MR. SCAROLA: Are we finished with the 11:39:57 10 speech? 11 MR. SCOTT: No. If he -- 11:39:58 12 MR. SCAROLA: I'd like him to finish the 11:39:59 13 speech so that we can get to my question and 14 then we can take a break. 15 A. So the question -- the answer to your 11:40:02 16 question is 17 MR. SIMPSON: Wait a minute. Wait a 11:40:04 18 minute. Wait a minute. Please don't disclose 19 something that she has a right to raise that 20 objection if she wants to. 21 MR. SCOTT: Exactly. 11:40:13 22 THE WITNESS: Okay. 11:40:14 23 MR. SCOTT: Ask your question. 11:40:17 24 MR. SWEDER: Maybe you want to read back 11:40:20 25 the last couple of sentences. EFTA01116717 Exhibit 2 EFTA01116718 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.phippsreporting.com (888)811-3408 EFTA01116719 181 183 1 APPEARANCES: 1 INDEX a 2 3 On behalf of Mairatiflk Examination Page SEARCY. DENNEY, SCAROLA 3 4 BARNHART & SHIPLEY. P.A. 4 VOLUME 2 (Pages 180 - 333) 2139 Pain Beach Lakes Boulevatd S Direct By Mr. Scarola 184 s West Palm Beach, Florida 33402.3626 BY: JACK SCAROLA ESQ. 6 Certificate of Oath 330 6 jingscarcybw.com Certificate of Reporter 331 7 7 Read and Sign Letter to Witness 332 8 On behalf of Defendant Errata Sheet (forwarded upon execution) 333 9 COLE. SCO1T & KISSANE. RA $ PLAINTIFF EXHIBITS Doieland Cate II - Sum 1400 9 10 9150 South Dadeland Boukvard Miani, Florida 33156 No. Page 11 BY: THONIAS EMERSON SCOTT— M. ESQ. thomasscon@sklegatrom 10 I Television Interview Transcript 193 12 BY: STEVEN SAFRA. ESQ. (Via phone) 11 13 stevensafra€esklepleont 2 Except from Deposition of Alan M. 193 14 SWEDE R & RC6S. LLP 12 Dershowitz 131 °titer Saco 13 3 Photograph - 8x10 - Color 194 15 Boston. MA 02110 14 4 Photograph - 8x10 - Color 197 BY: KENNETH A. SWEDER, ESQ. 15 5 Flight Log Information Sheet 198 16 kswederensvinkerosneorn 16 6 Composite - Flight logs 240 18 WILEY, REIN 17 7 Composite - Flight manuals 240 17769 K Sava NW 18 8 Photograph - 8x10 - Color 305 19 Washington. DC 20006 19 9 Composite - Calendar entries 306 20 BY: RICHARD A SIMPSON. ESQ. RSimsongmikyreinecen 20 10 Composite - Calendar entries 307 BY: NICOLE A. RICHARDSON. ESQ. 21 II Compositc - Calendar entries 307 21 nrichankoe44.40eyreincom 22 12 Composite - Calendar entries 307 22 23 23 24 34 25 25 182 184 1 APPEARANCES (Continued): 1 VIDEOGRAPHER: Going on the record. This 2 On behalf of Jeffrey Epstein: 2 is day two of Alan Dershowitz's deposition. 3 DARREN K. INDYKE. PLLC 3 The date is October 16, 2015, and the time is 575 Lexington Ave.. 4th Fl. 4 approximately 9:18 a.m. 4 New York, New York BY: DARREN K. INDYKE, ESQ. (Via phone) 5 MR. SCAROLA: Would you please reswear the 5 6 witness. 6 On behalf o 7 TILE COURT REPORTER: Would you raise your 7 BOWS. NER, LLP 8 right hand. please? 401 E. , 00 9 Do you swear or affirm that the testimony 8 Fort Lauderdale. Florida 33301 10 you arc about to give will be the truth. the 9 BY: SIGRID STONE MCCAWLEY, ESQ. [email protected] 11 whole truth, and nothing but the nth? 10 12 THE WITNESS: Yes. 11 ALSO PRESENT: 13 Thereupon: 12 Joni Jones, Utah Attorney General Office 14 ALAN M. DERSHOWIT2 13 Travis Gallagher, Videographer 15 having been first duly sworn, was examined and 14 16 testified as follows: 15 16 17 DIRECT EXAMINATION 17 18 BY MR. SCAROLA: 18 19 Q. Mr. Dershowitz, what Is rhetorical 19 20 hyperbole? 20 21 A. Rhetorical means veibel and hyperbole 21 22 22 means exaggeration. 23 23 4 Something other than the truth, correct? 24 24 A. Truth-- 25 25 MR. SCOTT: Objection. form. relevancy. 2 (Pages 181 to 184) www.phippsreporting.com (888)811-3408 EFTA01116720 185 187 1 A. Truth has many, many meanings and is a 1 transcript of the interview? We'd like to see 2 continuum. The Supreme Court has held that 2 it. 3 rhetorical hyperbole cannot be the basis• for 1 MR. SCAROLA: That's exactly what I gave 4 example, of perjury prosecutions or generally of a 4 you, the photocopy. 5 defamation prosecution. 5 MR. SCOTT: We're doing it right now. 6 So it depends on the context. You might 6 Maybe we can move on and conic back then. 7 just look at the dictionary and probably get a 7 MR. SCAROLA: No, I would like to proceed. 8 variety of definiticas for it. 8 MR. SCOTT: Then let's stop until I get a 9 BY MR. SCAROLA: 9 copy of it. Because he -- I want -- 10 Q. Well, what I'm concerned about, 10 MR. SCAROLA: I don't think that's 11 Mr. Dershowltz, Is not a dictionary definition. I 11 necessary because your client has told us that 12 want to know what your understanding of rhetorical 12 he has a superb memory and one of the things I 13 hyperbok Is. 13 would like to know is what he's able to recall. 14 And do you agree that pursuant to your 14 If he needs to refresh his memory. the 15 understanding of rhetorical hyperbole, It Is an 15 transcripts will be here in just a moment, but 16 exaggeration beyond the facts? 16 I don't want to delay going forward. 17 MR. SCO•IT: Objection, argumentative and 17 MR. SCOTT: Do you need the transcript to 18 compound, throe questions. 18 refresh your memory? 19 A. No.- 19 TIIE WITNESS: Well, I have no memory of 20 MR. SCOTT: You can answer. 20 what specifically I said on a particular day in 21 A. -- I would not agree with that definition. 21 a particular interview. 22 BY MR. SCAROLA: 22 MR. SCOTT: Since you hate a copy in front 23 Q. Okay. Then define it for us, if you 23 of him, why don't you just show him your copy 24 would, please. 24 then? Read the — ask your question and let 25 A. I think I have already. 25 him read it. 186 188 1 Q. I'm sorry, I missed the definition. Could 1 BY MR. SCAROLA: 2 you tell us what rhetorical hyperbole is? 2 Q. Do you recall having been Interviewed on 3 MR. SCOTT: Objection, repetitious. He's 3 CNN Tonight by Don Lemon? 4 done it. 4 A. Ycs. I do. 5 A. Why don't we just read back my answer. S Q. Do you recall hating been interviewed on 6 BY MR. SCAROLA: 6 CNN Tonight by Don Lemon In early January of 2015, 7 Q. Because I didn't understand it, so I would 7 where you spoke about marten that have become the 8 like you to try to give us a direct response to that 8 subject of thb litigation? 9 question if you're able to. 9 A. Yes, I do. 10 A. I will repeat exactly that I said. A 10 Q. Did you make the following statement 11 rhetorical means verbal and hyperbole means some 11 during the course of that interview: "As to the 12 exaggeration of the facts for political or other 12 airplanes, there are manifests that will prove 13 reasons, but generally it is truthful in a literal 13 beyond any doubt that I was never on a private 14 sense but perhaps -- it all depends on context. 14 airplane with Ibis woman or ally other underage 15 And if you tell me the context in which I 15 girl"? 16 used it, I will be happy to describe what I meant in 16 MR. SCOTT: You need to see the 17 that context. But I don't think you can really 17 transcript? 18 answer a question about what two words put together 18 THE WITNESS: No. No. 19 mean without understanding the context. 19 A. That is a truthful statement. I would 20 Q. Okay. Well, we're going to talk about 20 repeat it right now. I've reviewed the manifests. 21 some context. 21 First, I know I was never on the airplane 22 Do you recall having been interviewed on 22 with any underage woman. I know that for a fact. I 23 CNN Tonight on January 5, 2015? 23 have absolutelyno doubt in tny mind about that And 24 25 A. I have no current recollection of -- MR. SCOTT: Do you have a copy of the 24 25 the records that ant that. Thcy ha a number or 3 (Pages 185 to 188) www.phippsreporting.com (888)811-3408 EFTA01116721 189 191 1 airplane flights with Jeffrey Epstein. They have me 1 to the transcription, the official transcription of 2 on a number of flights, none-- let me emphasize. 2 that testimony, was that, quote: 3 none within the relevant time period, none within 3 "Let me emphasize that the manifests that 4 the relevant time period. That is. there are no 4 do exculpate me do not show me flying wit 5 manifests that have me on Jeffrey E eon's airplane 5 not show me flying with a 6 during the time t ants to 6 women." 7 have -- falsely c th me. 7 That was the testimony you gave under 8 So. yes, not only recall making that 8 oath. Do you stand by that testimony today? 9 statement, but I repeat it here today. And it is 9 A. The manifests that I saw corroborate my 10 absolutely t what I know. 10 own memory -- my own memory is as clear as could 11 and that is t up the Mire 11 be— that I never saw any inappropriately aged, 12 story, 12 'Wagged women on any airplane to my knowledge that 13 BY MR. SCAROLA: 13 were visible to me at any time that I flew. That is 14 Q. Your Statement — 14 my testimony. yes. 15 MR. SCOTT: What page arc you reading 15 Q. Well, that's not a response to the 16 from? 16 question that I asked. Is it your testimony today 17 MR. SCAROLA: Page 5. 17 that you never flew on a private airplane with, 18 Q. Your statement was that you were never on 18 quote, "any young women"? 19 a private airplane with this woman, which I assume 19 MR SCOTr: Objection, foam 20 was a referc et 20 A. By young women, I obviously meant in Mat 21 A. It is, 21 context underage women. And underage women in the 22 Q. Or any other underage girl? 22 context of sexuality. And, yes, I — I stand by 23 A. Thai's right. 23 that statement. 24 Q. All right. How many times — 24 BY MR. SCAROLA: 25 A. Well, let me be very clear. I have no 25 Q. Affright So your — your elarificadon 190 192 1 idea who was in the front cabin of the airplane with 1 of your earlier testimony is that you never saw any 2 the pilots. Obviously what I intended to say and 2 young women in a sexual context? 3 what I say here now is I never saw an underaged 1 A. Th3es not clarification. I think that's 4 person on an airplane. 4 what I initially said. That's what l initially S Now, when I — when I flew with Jeffrey 5 intended. And that's the way a ny reasonable — any 6 Epstein to the launch, my recollection is that there 6 reasonable person would interpret what my original 7 may have been a couple on the plane with their child 7 testimony was. So I don't believe my original s who was going to see the launch. But that was 8 testimony required anyclarification. 9 certainly not the context in which I made the 9 Q, So what you meant to convey by the 10 statement 10 statement that you made when you said you never flew 11 I never saw any underage, young person who 11. with any underage girt or any young women was you 12 would be the subject or object of any improper 12 never flew with any underage girl or young women in 13 sexual activities. Had I seen Jeffrey Epstein ever 13 a sexual context? 14 in the presence of an underage woman in a context 14 MR. SCOTT: Objection, Than. 15 that suggested sexuality. / would have, A, left the 15 BY MR SCAROLA: 16 scene; B, reported it; and. C, never had any further 16 Q. Is that correct? 17 contact with Jeffrey Epstein. 17 A. Let me simply repeat the fact and that is. 18 Q. You have also made the statement that you 18 to my knowledge. I never flew on an airplane or was 19 were never on a private airplane with any underage 19 ever in the presence on an airplane with any 20 women or any young women, correct? 20 underage warn who would be somebody who might be in 21 A. Thc context was underage woolen in a sexual 21 a sexual context. I say that only to eliminate the 22 context. If it was a — you know, a four-year-old 22 possibility that some four-teat...3H was on the lap 23 child being carried by her mother. that would not be 23 of a mother or somebody was on the airplane with 24 included in what I intended to say. 24 family members. 25 Q. Your sworn testimony yesterday, according 25 But, no, trio 001 recall — and flu very 4 (Pages 189 to 192) www.phippsreporting.com (888)811-3408 EFTA01116722 193 195 1 firm about this — being on an airplane with anybody 1 A. I don't remember that I flew with her or 2 who I believed could be the subject of Jeffrey 2 not. I may have. But I don't recall necessarily. 3 Epstein or anyone else's improper sexual activities. 3 But I did meet -- I remember meeting a woman named 4 MR. SCAROLA: All right Let's mark the 4 'is does not look like ke the 5 transcript that we've been referring to as 5 woman I 'net. 6 Exhibit Number I, please. That's the 6 Q. Okay. So that's a — that's a different 7 transcript of the television interviews that 7 8 we'll be discussing. 8 A. No, I don't know. 9 (Thereupon, marked as Plaintiff Exhibit 9 MR. SCOTT: Objection, fonn, 10 I.) 10 argumentative. 11 MR. SCOTT: This is actually 2. right? We 11 A. I have no idea. I do not recognize this 12 had one yesterday, an anicle from the British 12 woman. She's not familiar to inc at all. 13 newspaper? 13 I can tell you this: Without any doubt. I 14 MR. SCAROLA: No. It was not marked as an 14 never met anybody dressed like this on any airplane 15 exhibit. This is the first exhibit that's been 15 or in the presence of Jeffrey Epstein or in any 16 marked. 16 Context — 17 MR. SCOTT: No. I know that, but I thought 17 BY MIL SCAROLA: 18 we were going to mark that one. Maybe I was — 18 Q. Did she have - 19 I asked for that. Okay. 19 A. -- related to this case. 20 It was an answer and counterclaim about 20 Q. — more clothes on or less clothes on when 21 the allegation shown to the witness. 21 you met her? 22 MR. SCAROLA: And Exhibit Number 2 will be 22 MR. SCOTT: Objection, form. He said he 23 the transcript from yesterday's proceedings 23 never met her. Misrepresent -- 24 that I have just referenced. 24 BY MR. SCAROLA: 25 (Thereupon marked as Plaintiff 25 Q. When you met the woman that you're 194 196 1 Exhibit 2.) 1 referencing, did she have more clothes on or less 2 MR. SCOTT: You don't have a copy of that, 2 clothes on than that wonmn? 3 do you, of the transcript? 3 A. Every woman that I met in the presence of 4 MR. SCAROLA: No. Got sent to you. I 4 Jeffrey Epstein was properly dressed. usually in 5 assume you have it. 5 suits and dresses and -- and appropriately covered 6 BY MIL SCAROLA: 6 up. I never met any women in the context of Jeffrey 7 Q. I'm going to hand you what we'll now mark 7 Epstein who weredossed anything like this. 8 as Exhibit Number 3. 8 Q. Would you agree that that is a young woman 9 (Thereupon, marked as Plaintiff 9 in that photograph? 10 Exhibit 3.) 10 A I have no idea what her age is. 11 MR. SCOTT: There's no question. 11 Q. So you don't know whether she was underage 12 MR. SWEDER: Yes. 12 or overage or a young woman or not a young woman? 13 BY MR. SCAROLA: 13 A. I don't -- 14 Q. Do you recognize that young woman, 14 MR. SCOTT: Objection, form. 15 Mr. Dershowitz? 15 A. — know this wanan. so I have no idea how 16 A. No. 16 old a woman in a picture is. She could be — the 17 Q. Never saw her? 17 could be 30. She could be 25. I have no ides 18 A. Not that I know of. 18 BY MR. SCAROLA: 19 Q. Never flew on an private airplane with 19 Q. Or she could be 15 or 16? 20 her? 20 A. I don't think so. 21 A. Not that I know of. 21 Q. But you don't know? 22 Q. Do you recognize the name 22 A. This doesn't — well, I don't know how old 23 A. I do recall that Jeff Epstein had a 23 you arr. This does not strike me -- 24 friend 24 Q. Old enough to know that — 25 Q. Thal you flew with? 25 MR. SCOTT: You're cutting -- 5 (Pages 193 to 196) www.phippsreporting.com (888)811-3408 EFTA01116723 197 199 1 BY MR. SCAROLA: 1 ographs identify the woman as 2 Q. — that's a woman. 2 t? 3 young MR. SCOTT: Objection. You're cutting the 3 4 witness off. You're not letting him finish 4 MR. SCOTT: Mr. Dershowin, take your S A. This looks like a picture out of a Playboy 5 time -- 6 or Penthouse magazine. It does not look to me like 6 TIIE WITNESS: Yeah. 7 a person who is under the age of IE. or I? or IS. 7 MR. SCOTT: — review the exhibits. Dont 8 But I don't think you can tell anything from the 8 be rushed by Mr. Scarola. 9 picture. I think you can tell much more front 9 A. Yes, it's aditto:sent — different 10 meeting somebody and being with them and having a 10 spelling of the name. The Tatiana on the manifest 11 conversation with them. 11 is spell 12 MR. SCAROLA: Let's mark this photograph. 12 Th ph is 13 if wc could, as Exhibit Number 4. 13 I have no idea whether — 14 (Thereupon, marked as Plaintiff 14 BY MR. SCAROLA: 15 Exhibit 4.) 15 Q. The last name - 16 BY MR. SCAROLA: 16 A. — they arc the same person 17 Q. Does Exhibit Number 4 help you at all to 17 Q. — is the same, ht? 18 recognize this young woman? 18 A. There's no last name. 19 A. I've never -- I have no — no recollection 19 Q. Well, read down a little bit further. If 20 of this young woman at all. 20 you would, Mr. Dershowitz. 21 All ht. Would describe for 21 A. You mean as to a different flight? 22 Q. ri you us, please, the • ou flew with Jeffrey 22 Q. Yes, sir. Identifying the return flight 23 Epstein on November 17,2005? 23 for the sam 24 A_ First, I want to emphasize that that's 24 A. I have no idea that it's a return flight. 25 three years later than any of the issues involved in 25 I have nothing on the record that suggests that it's 198 200 1 this case. I have no recollection of with 1 a return flight. And it has different people on it 2 this woman. I saw the name m a manifest. 2 So I have no reason to believe it's a return flight. 3 And my recollection of • I have 3 Q. Is the last — the question that I asked 4 no recollection c4 S with her, but my 4 you, Mr. Denhowitx, is: Is the last name spelled 5 recollection of is that she %usurious. 5 exactly the same as the last name is spelled in the 6 mid 20s woman friend ofleffrey Epstein, who I may 6 two photographs I have shown you? 7 have met on one cc two or three occasions when he 7 A. Let me look. So. on the 20th of 8 was with her in — perhaps at Harvard University 8 November — 9 where he was meeting with academies and scholars. or 9 Q. Is the last name — 10 mhos — II think lhars probably the comma 10 MR. SCOTT: Whoa. whoa -- 11 where — where she might have been. 11 BY MR. SCAROLA: 12 Q. But you never flew with her? 12 Q. — spelled the same way on both the flight 13 A. I have no recollection or flying with her. 13 log and the two photographs I have shown you? 14 Q. Okay. Well, let me see if this helps to 14 A. On — you mean on a flight log that I was 15 refresh your recollection, Mr. Denhowitz. 15 not on the flight? Is that right? You're talking 16 MR. SCAROLA: Let's mark this as Exhibit 16 about a flight log that I was not on the flight. 17 Number 5, please. 17 right? 18 THE WITNESS: Uh-huh, yes. 18 Q. That flight log shows you on multiple 19 (Thereupon. marked as Plaintiff 19 flights, does it not? 20 Exhibit 5.) 20 A. It shows me not on that flight. It shows 21 BY MR. SCAROLA: 21 me on a number of flights, but not on that flight. 22 Q. Do you see that the name of the woman In 22 MR. SCOTT: What's the date of the 23 v you b 23 flights? 24 Victoria Secrets model? 24 TOE WITNESS: The date of that flight 25 The photographs, sir, look 21 the 25 is -- looks like November 20th, 2005, more 6 (Pages 197 to 200) www.phippsreporting.com (888)811-3408 EFTA01116724 201 203 I than three years aft len 1 BY MR. SCAROLA: 2 for -- 2 Q. Is the last name on the photograph spelled 3 BY MR. SCAROLA: 3 exactly the same way as the last name on the flight 4 Q. Mr. Dershowitz — 4 log? S MR. SCOTT: You're cutting the witness 5 A. If you're talking °beet a flight log that 6 off. 6 I was not on that flight, thc answer is yes. 7 MR. SCAROLA: Ile's not answering my 7 Q. All right. Thank you very much, slr. 8 question. Tom. 8 Now, that flight log also shows you flying 9 MR. SCOTT: Well - 9 repeatedly In the company of a woman named Tatiana 10 MR. SCAROLA: I want to know whether the 10 correct? 11 last name is spelled the same or it isn't 11 A. rye only seen one reference ha 12 spelled thc samc on the flight log marked as an 12 November I?. If you want to show me any other 13 exhibit and on the photographs. That's a very 13 references. Id be happy to look at than. 14 direct question. It calls for a vary direct 14 Q. All right, sir. Thank you. 15 yes or no response. 15 Let's go back to the — 16 And this witness has demonstrated a clear 16 MR SCOTT: Are we done with this exhibit? 17 refusal to respond directly to direct 17 MR. SCAROLA: We are done with the 18 questions, which will result, when we resume 18 exhibit. 19 this deposition, in our requesting that the 19 MR. SCOTT: Okay. Then let's collect the 20 Court appoint a special master so that this 20 exhibits so that we don't have a big — then 21 deposition doesn't take two weeks to complete. 21 well turn them over to the court reporter to 22 MR. SCOTT: You know, Mr. Scarola, that's 22 keep safekeeping. 23 a nice speech and I appreciate it. 23 That you go, young lady. don't Rise 24 MR. SCAROLA: Thank you. 24 those, don't get than wet. And well proceed. 25 MR. SCOTT: I don't agree with your 25 202 204 1 characterization. And if you recall. months 1 BY MR. SCAROLA: 2 ago I suggested a special master for this 2 Q. Did you state during the same Inteniew, 3 lients' depositions and 3 the CNN Don Lemon interview: "She has said that 4 f and your response to me 4 Bill Clinton was with her at an orgy on Jeffrey's 5 was: I'll consider it, I won't pay far it. If 5 island"? 6 your client wants to pay for it -- so basically 6 A. I did state that. yes. 7 you blew me off. 7 Q. Was that statement intended as fact, 8 So. I appreciate you finally come around. 8 opinion, or was it Intended as rhetorical hyperbole? 9 And your clients. 9 MR. SCOTT: Do you understand the 10 MR. SCAROLA: Your client's misconduct has 10 question? 11 clearly convinced me, having now considered it, 11 THE WITNESS: Yes, I do. 12 that it is absolutely necessary. 32 A. It was a statement based on what I 13 MR. SCOTT: Okay. Now -- 13 believed were the facts at the time I said them. 14 BY MR SCAROLA: 14 Various newspapers and Hogs had placed 15 Q. So now could I get an answer to my 15 Bill Clinton on, quote, 'orgy island" on -- in the 16 question — 16 presence ofJeffrey Epstein when there were orgies. 17 MR. SCOTT: Now that we have -- 17 And at the time I made that statement, I had a 18 BY MR. SCAROLA: 18 belief that she had accused Bill Clinton of 19 Q. — whether the last name on the flight log 19 participating or being -- as being a part of cr an 20 is spelled exactly the same way as the last name in 20 observer or -- or a witness or a participant in 21 the photographs? 21 orgies on what was called Jeffrey Epstein's orgy 22 MIL SCOTT: Nov that all the lawyers 22 island. That was my state of belief, honest belief 23 speeches arc done, read the question back and 23 at the time I made that statement. 24 the witness will answer it. 24 BY MR_ SCAROLA: 25 MR. SCAROLA: I will repeat the question. 25 Q. Yes, sir. And What I want to know is what 7 (Pages 201 to 204) www.phippsreporting.com (888)811-3408 EFTA01116725 205 1 the source of that honest belief was? Identify any 2 source that attributed to .he 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 participated in sexual activities on the island 9 either as an observer or as a participant. The 10 issue was raised on Sean Hannitys program. The 11 headlines in various British media had suggested 12 that 13 It's my belief th 14 intended to convey that [monism 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 finn 21 statement that she -- which was a -- which was a 22 perjurious statement, a finn penurious 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 207 Clinton on orgy island, things of that kind. I 2 would be happy to provide than for you. I donl 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: Font 13 A. I don't think that distinction was ekarty 19 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. 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 S 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. 1 had a firm belief, based on reading 18 newspaper accounts and blogs. that it was true. 19 Q. Canyouidentify a le newspaper that 20 attributed 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 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 hens 8 on the island and participated in on orgy. 9 Newspapers picked up those stories. Ill 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 infened 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 infonnatiai. 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 mammal. 8 (Pages 205 to 208) www.phippsreporting.com (888)811-3408 EFTA01116726 209 211 1 Q. Okay. So you now are withdrawing the 1 Your client is doing everything he can to avoid 2 statement that you made tha d 2 giving direct answers to these questions. 3 that Bill Clinton was with h 3 I would appreciate it if you would take a 4 Jeffrey's island; that was wrong? 4 break, counsel your client that the speeches 5 A. I don't know whether she ever said that 5 arc not helpful to anyone, and especially not 6 !would not repeat that statement and have not 6 helpful to him. 7 repeated that statement based on her denial. As 7 MR. SCOTT: If you want to take a break, 8 soon as she denied it, I never again made that 8 I'll take a break and I will advise my client 9 statement and would not again make that statement 9 whatever I feel is appropriate, not what you 10 Q. You — 10 instruct me to do. 11 A. But I did reiterate the fact that she 11 MR. SCAROLA: Okay. Well, if you think it 12 committed perjury when she said she was on the 12 might help at all in the progress of this 13 island with Bill Clinton. 13 deposition, then I do want to take a break. If 14 MR. SCAROLA: Move to strike the 14 you don't think taking a break would be 15 nonresponsive -. 15 helpful, I don't want to take a break. 16 A. That was the perjurious statement. 16 MR. SCOTT: Do you want to take a break or 17 MR. SCAROLA: Move to strike the 17 not? 18 nonresponsive portions of the answer. 18 THE WITNESS: I'm going to leave it to 19 BY MR. SCAROLA: 19 your judgment. I'm happy to proceed -- 20 Q. You have made a reference during a a 20 MR. SCOTT: Okay. I'll be glad to take a 21 N Interview to this woman, referring i 21 break. 22 ing a criminal record? 22 MR. SCAROLA: Thank you. 23 A. t's right. 23 MR. SCOTT: I can't say - 24 Q. Okay. What — what is a criminal record? 24 MR. SCAROLA: Five minutes. 25 A. Well• the way I used the term is that she 25 MR. SCOTT: -- it will help you or 210 212 1 committed a crime and legal -- some kind of 1 anything but -- 2 proceedings resulted from her committing a crime. 2 MR. SCAROLA: I can understand that you 3 The crime she committed was stealing money from a 3 don't — you don't have that control, but if 4 restaurant that she worked at while she was also 4 there's any reasonable -- 5 working for Jeffrey Epstein. And it was my 5 MR. SCOTT: You know, Counsel -- 6 information that there was a criminal record of her 6 MR. SCAROLA: -- prospect that it might 7 theft. 7 help, let's give it a try. 8 Q. How old was she at the lime this alleged 8 MR. SCOTT: You know, I really don't 9 offense occurred? 9 appreciate thecomments about my abilities as 10 A. I don't know. But old enough to be held 10 an attorney, like I don't have that control and 11 criminally responsible in the State of Florida. to 11 things of nature. It really is — 12 my knowledge. To my knowledge, I— I recall a case 12 MR. SCAROLA: I don't have the control 13 where a I4-year-old boy was sentenced as an adult 13 either. 14 for -- 14 MR. SCOTT: It's not -- 15 MR. SCAROLA: Mr. Scott — 15 MR. SCAROLA: I'm not trying to disparage 16 A. — a serious -- 16 you at all in any respect. I'm just suggesting 17 MR. SCAROLA: — did my question ask 17 that -- 18 anything about a I4-year-old boy'? 18 MR. SCOTT: Okay. 19 A. You asked if -- 19 MR. SCAROLA: -- there is reason to doubt 20 MR. SCAROLA: Do we really need to listen 20 that it will do any good. But I want to give 21 to this? 21 it a try. 22 MR. SCOTT: You're asking questions, my 22 MR. SCOTT: Okay. Fine. Thank you. 23 client is providing his response. 23 MR. SCAROLA: Thank you. 24 MR. SCAROLA: No your client is not 24 VIDEOGRAPHER: Going off the record. The 25 responding Your client is filibustering 25 time is approximately 9:49 a.m. 9 (Pages 209 to 212) www.phippsreporting.com (888)811-3408 EFTA01116727 213 215 1 (Recess was held from 9:49 a.m. until 10:01 am) 1 Q. That would certainly have been prior to 2 VIDEOGRAPHER: Going back on the record. 2 February 23rd of 2015, correct? 3 The titer is approximately !R0I a.m. 3 A. Yes. 9 MR. SCOTT: ifyou've finished your bagel 4 MR. SCOTT: Are you going back to the 5 we're ready to proceed. I think. 5 exhibit now with the newspapers and -- 6 MR. SCAROLA: I think we arc. I was 6 MR. SCAROLA: Not yet. 7 actually ready to proceed a little bit earlier, 7 MR. SCOTT: Okay. 8 but we'll proceed now. 8 BY MR. SCAROLA: 9 BY MR. SCAROLA: 9 Q. Having reviewed the available airplane 10 Q. Mr. Dershowltz, do you agree with the 10 flight logs, you are aware that Bill Clinton flew on 11 basic concept that one is presumed to be Innocent 11 at least 15 occasions with Jeffrey Epstein on his 12 until proven guilty? 12 private plane, correct? 13 A. Yes 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. Ha :or been proven to 14 Q. Have you ever attempted to get flight log 15 be guilty o any crime a any me, anywhere, at any 15 information with regard to Former President 16 age? 16 Clinton's other private airplane travel? 17 A. I don't know the answer to that question, 17 A. No. 18 bee I do know that she was brought into the legal 18 Q. Never made a public records request — 19 system for stealing money from her employer and 1 19 A. Yes. 20 think ifs fair to characterize that as her having a 20 Q. — under the Freedom of Information Act 21 criminal record. yeah. 21 with regard to those records? 22 Q. To the extent that anyone m tht interpret 22 A. Well we have made a Freedom of 23 your comment tha was ever 23 Information request. My -- my attorney in New York. 24 convicted of a crime, they would be drawing a false 24 Louis Reek the former head of the FBI, has made a 25 conclusion as far as you know, correct? 25 FOIA request for all information that would 214 216 1 A. As far as I know. I don't know of her 1 conclusively prove that Bill Clinton was never on 2 having convicted of any crime. But I do know that 2 Jeffrey Epstein's island, yes. 3 she was proceeded against for having stolen money. 3 Q. And you were denied those records, 4 And I don't think she contested that. I don't think 4 correct? 5 there's any dispice about the fact that she stole s A. No, no, no. 6 money and engaged in other crimes as well. 6 Q. Oh, you got them? 7 Q. When did you find out about this alleged 7 MR. SCOTT: Well wait a minute. Let's 8 crime? 8 take it slow. Ask a question. 9 A. As soon as the false allegation against MC 9 A. As any lawyer knows, FOIA requests take a 10 was made public, I got call after call after call 10 long, long period of time. So they were neither 11 from people telling me about . about 11 denied nor were they given to us. They ate very 12 your 22 clients. The calls ju m g in 12 much in process. 13 because there was such outrage at diis false 13 BY MR. SCAROLA: 14 allegation being directed against tm. 14 Q. When was — 15 MR. SCAltOIA: Move to strike the 15 A. While we're talking about -- may I 16 unresponsive portion of the answer. 1 6 complete -- I want to amend one answer I gave 17 BY MR. SCAROLA: 17 previously. 18 Q. You found out as soon as the CVRA 18 While we're talking about the plane logs. 19 complaint was — the CVRA allegations referencing 19 I must say that during the rims, my wife Googled 20 you were filed; is that correct? 20 Tatiana and found out that she was, in fact, 24 21 A. I didn't say that. I said as soon as they 21 years old in 1995, at the lime she flew on that 22 were made public and as soon as the newspapers 22 airplane. So that my characterization of her as 23 carried these false stories, I received phonecalls 23 about 25 years old is absolutely correct. 24 and I teamed about -- I learned about her encounter 24 And the implication that you sought to 25 with the criminal justice system. 25 draw by showing me those pictures was not only 10 (Pages 213 to 216) www.phippsreporting.com (888)811-3408 EFTA01116728 217 219 1 demonstrably fake, but you could have easily 1 she has a history of lying, knowing that she is 2 discovered that the implication you were drawing was 2 easily suggestible, and they basically pressured 3 demonstrably false by simply taking one second and 3 her, according to my sources, into including me when 4 Googling her name as my wife did. 4 she didn't want to include me. because by including 5 BY MR. SCAROLA: 5 me, they could make a claim, false as it was, could 6 Q. And so at 25 years old, she wasn't a young 6 make a false claim that a person who negotiated the 7 woman? 7 NPA was also criminally involved with her. 8 A. She was not the kind of woman that I was 8 They also lied — lied unethically and 9 describing as underage. She was a mature, serious, 9 unprofessionally by saying that I negotiated that 10 I think I said in my public statements a model. I 10 provision of the NM. which gave me, myself, any 11 wasn't aware at the time that see was Viorking for 11 kind of • ' cation had I had improper 12 Victoria's Secrets, but Google demonstrates that. 12 Sex wit vhich, of course, I did 13 And I described her exactly, in exactly the right 13 not. And t t was ascot bases on which I was 14 tams, a serious person. 14 certain that they had engaged in unprofessional. 15 I always saw her domed when I saw her — 15 disbarrable and unethical conduct by including that 16 I saw her maybe on two or three occasions. dressed 16 provision, as well as including a provision that 17 appropriately. She was a serious adult worker and I 17 Prince Andrew was included because he, Prince 18 think you insult and demean her when you suggest 18 Andrew, pressured a United States attorney to try to 19 that anything other than that she was a serious 19 get a good deal for Jeffrey Epstein. 20 adult when she flew on that airplane. 20 That is so laughable. How any lawyer 21 Q. You were asked on the occasion of that 21 could put that in a pleading. it doesn't pass even 22 same Don Lemon CNN Interview what possible motive 22 the minimal giggle test. And I'm embarrassed for 23 the attorneys, Brad Edwards and Paul Cassell, could 23 Professor Cassell that he would have signed his name 24 have had to have identified you in the pleading that 24 to a pleading that alleges that Prince Andrew would 25 was filed in the Crime Victim's Rights Act case. 25 pressure the United States attorney for the Southern 218 220 1 Do you remember that? 1 District of Florida into giving Jeffrey Epstein a 2 A. That's right. yes. 2 good deal. 3 Q. And your response was, quote — 3 MR. SCAROLA: Mow to strike the 4 MR. SCOTT: Here's your transcript if you 4 unresponsive portions of the answer. And 5 need to rekr to it. 5 obviously the break didn't do any good. 6 BY MR. SCAROLA: 6 MR. SCOTT: Let's proceed. 7 Q. — "They want to be able to challenge the 7 MR. SCAROLA: We're going to. 8 plea agreement and I was one of the lawyers who 8 BY MR. SCAROLA: 9 organized the plea agreement. I got the very good 9 Q. You stated, quote: "If they," referring 10 deal for Jeffrey Epstein." 10 to Bradley Edwards and Paul Cassell, "could find a 11 Did you make that response? 11 lawyer who helped draft the agreement" — 12 A. Yes. 12 A. Right. 13 Q. So, you recognized as of January 5, 2015. 13 Q. — "who also was a criminal having sex, 14 that the reason why the statements were filed in the 14 wow, that could help them blow up the agreement." 15 Crime Victim's Rights Act case wits because the Crime 15 Did you make that statement on -- 16 Victim's Rights Act case had, as an objective. 16 A. Yes. I just repeated it now, yea- under 17 setting aside the plea agreement that you had 17 oath, yes. 18 negotiated for Jeffrey Epstein. correct? 18 Q. Did you state the following in that same 19 MR. SCOTT: Objection, form. Go ahead if 19 interview: "So • " ' dley Edwards, 20 you can answer it. 20 Paul Cassell an at down 21 A. There were multiple motives. One of the 21 together, the three o t ern, I ese two sleazy. 22 motives was crassly financial. They ware trying to 22 unprofessional disbarrable lawyers" — 23 line their pockets with money. But as I also said. 23 A. Uh.huh, uh-huh. 24 and I said this over and over spin, they profiled 24 Q. — "they said" — 25 me. They sat down with their client, knowing that 25 MR. SCOTT: Let him ask the question. 11 (Pages 217 to 220) www.phippsreporting.com (888)811-3408 EFTA01116729 221 223 1 1 who made transcripts of them. 2 BY MR. SCAROLA: 2 Q. Did you turn them over to opposing 3 Q. — "who would tit Into this description? 3 counsel — 4 They and the woman got together and contrived and 4 MR. SCOTT: The transcripts — 5 made this up." 5 BY MR. SCAROLA: 6 Did you make that statement on national 6 Q. — in the course of discovery? 7 television? 7 MR. SCOTT: The transcripts we consider to 8 A. Yes, and I just repeated it under oath. I 8 be work product. If you make a request to 9 believe that to be the ease. I think that's exactly 9 produce, we'll provide them. 10 what happened. And I think that my source has 10 MR. SIMPSON: Just for completeness, they 11 corroborated that. 11 were also after your discovery request. 12 By the way, can I add at this point -- I 12 MR. SCOTT: Request to produce, we'll 11 don't mean to distract you, but I think the record 13 consider providing them. 14 would be more complete if I indicated that I did get 14 BY MR. SCAROLA: 15 a phone call last night from Michael, who told me 15 Q. Is there an entry in any privilege log 16 17 that ' 3 S phone calls and texts r eying to persuade her not to 17 16 that identifies these allegedly privileged work product documents? 18 talk to me or cooperate with me and offering the 18 MR. SIMPSON: We will -- the lawyers will 19 help of a lawyer. 19 address the document production issues. But 20 And I also -- although you didn't ask the 20 two things, Mr. Scarola, first, they postdate 21 question. Mr. Scarola, I think for completeness and 21 your request and you have said several times 22 fullness, I do want to say that you asked me whether 22 there's no duty to supplement. And second, 23 or not I knew about what could be taped and what 23 they're work product. 24 did tape record some of what 24 MR. SCAROLA: Well, sir, if they postdated 25 Illiec.] told me, with ha 25 a full and complete production, which we are 222 224 1 permission, and I have those tape recordings. 1 now told they do not, then you wouldn't be 2 Q. Well, you're getting a little bit 2 obliged to supplement the production that had 3 overexcited, Mr. Derr ver tape 3 already been completed. But it is not the dale 4 recorded any Id you. 4 of the request that matters, it is the date of 5 A. Did I 5 the production that matters. 6 Q. You 6 And what we're now being told is there arc 7 A. I misspoke. You wouldn't know that. But, 7 allegedly highly relevant transcripts of a 8 in fact, let me be clear. 8 telephone conversation that occurred months ago 9 I tape recorded, with her permission, 9 when the last production that we received, 10 Rebecca's statements to me about whit Virginia 10 which we arc told still is not complete, 11 Roberts had told her. And I just want to make sure 11 occurred approximately two weeks ago 12 that for completeness, even though you didn't ask 12 So, there's no privilege log entry. 13 the question yesterday. that's part of the record. 13 There's no production of these documents. And 14 Q. WeILI actually did ask the question and 14 there is clearly a very significant discovery 15 my recollection is that you said you didn't even 15 violation if. in fact, such documents exist. 16 think about cape recording anything— 16 MR. SIMPSON: I'm not going to debate it 17 MR. SCOTT: No, that's not accurate. You 17 here. Mr. Scarola, but your assertions arc not 18 never asked that. 18 accurate. 19 BY MR. SCAROLA: 19 MR. SCAROLA: All right. There also was a 20 Q. But can you tell us, please, did you turn 20 subpoena duces tecum that was responded to 21 over those tape recordings In the discovery that you 21 tomorrow — l'in sorry, yesterday. Can you tell 22 were required to make In this case? 22 us whether the documents that are now being 23 A. The discovery — these events occurred 23 described arc included in response to the 24 after April of 2015. And I certainly aimed ma 24 subpoena duces tecum on the flash drive that 25 the recordings and the-- recordings to my lawyers. 25 you provided to us? 12 (Pages 221 to 224) www.phippsreporting.com (888)811-3408 EFTA01116730 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? MR. SIMPSON: Correct. 6 MR. SCAROLA: Okay. And what's the 7 explanation for that? 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 Rebecca 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 Rebecca told me that Virginia 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 Virginia 21 Roberts' lawyer. 22 MS. MCCAWLEY: 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. 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 227 A. I know what you know because I'm a logical t Virginia — I know that Sly called this this nd, rc knows her name. And you a lawyers are operating in psiv whispering to each other, you're passing notes You arc part of a joint legal team And if you want to know ha name, all you have to do is ask Sigrid McCawley and she'll tell you her name. I'm sure you know her name. And if you don't know ha name, it's became you haven't asked. Q. Okay. Well, I'm asking you — A. fm not going to tell you -• Q. — and I'm telling you I don't know her name. A. Okay. Q. Okay? As an officer of the court, l am telling you I don't know her name. And you are under oath and obliged to answer material and relevant questions, and I want to know what her name is. MR. SCOTT: I will provide you the name off the record, but fin not -- if he feels it's 226 1 Please ittstma the witness. 2 MR. SCOTT: Avoid that. We discussed that 3 yesterday. 4 THE WITNESS: That's line. 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-huli. 13 Q. That's a yes? 14 A. Yes. Yes, that's a yes. 15 Q. What is Rebecca's last name? 16 A. You know Rebecca's 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 tic 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. Dershowirs, how do you know what I 25 know if you haven't told me? 1 2 3 4 5 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 228 inappropriate because of what — he's not going to answer the question. I will provide you the name. BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. Okay. She has still insisted that her name not be revealed; is that correct? A. I ler husband asked me to do whatever I could not to put her name in front of the press, in front of the media. Q. There's no — there's no one from the press here today. MR. SCOTT: Yeah, but they're going to order the transcript and they're going to see. so that's the same thing. And I've already told — A. You will have her name in five -- MR. SCOTT: I will give you her Rome — A. minutes. All you have to do is — MR. SCOTT: And. Jack. if you want to take a break now — THE REPORTER: Hold on. Hold on, gentlemen. You can't talk at the same time. MR. SCOTT: Let me do the talking at this point. TIIE WITNESS: Please. 13 (Pages 225 to 228) www.phippsreporting.com (888)811-3408 EFTA01116731 229 2 3 ' 1 BY MR. SCAROLA: 1 moreaccomplished. 2 Q. What's her phone number? 2 MR. SCAROIA: Let's take it easy and slow. 3 A. Ha phone number is kno . . . 3 BY MR. SCAROLA: 4 Roberts and presumably- and to 4 Q. How did Michael ten you he knew these 5 roved ph 5 people he didn't speak to were lawyers? 6 So all you have to do is 6 vela phone call 7 you will get that. But I 7 ft his wife recchal 8 think there's no reason to put her phone number in 8 n from her all through 9 the public record so that she will receive massive 9 the night. And that they received phone calls as 10 amounts of phone calls from the media. Scans to me 10 well from ha lawyers. One of them had a Miami 11 that any — that a judge would try to prevent that 11 phone number. 12 from happening. I would hope so. And I'm — you 12 And I don't know how he knew they were 13 can get the name and the phone minter from my lawyer 13 lawyers. But that's what he conveyed to me. All I 14 as long as it's -- 14 can tell you is what he told me, and I'm telling you 15 MR. SCOTT: We'll provide that. 15 that. 16 A. -- done off the record, not so that the 16 Q. Did you ask him for the phone number? 17 twedia can see iL 17 A. I did not. 18 BY MR. SCAROLA: 18 Q. Why not? 19 Q. You just swore under oath that lawyers 19 A. I didn't think it was appropriate or 20 contacted Rebecca; is that correct? 20 necessary. 21 A. I swore wider oath that I was told by 21 Q. What was Inappropriate about asIdng for 22 Michael that lawyers contacted Rebecca, yes. 22 the phone number to find out who was attempting to 23 Q. Which lawyers? 23 contact this witness? 24 A. I don't know the answer to that. 24 A. I was not particularly interested in that. 25 Q. Did you ask him? 25 All I was interested in was getting the truth from 230 232 1 A. I did. 1 the witness and trying to prevent her from having a 2 Q. And he said, I — 2 media banage that would interfere with their hies. 3 A. Ile wouldn't answer that. 3 Q. You told Don Lemon on CNN that the flight 4 Q. — refuse to tell you? 4 manifests would exonerate you, prove that you were 5 A. No, he didn't know the answer to that 5 not In the same place at the same time as Virginia 6 either because he didn't return the phone calls. Ile 6 Roberts. correct? 7 said -- 7 A. That's right. And that's true. 8 Q. How did he know they were lawyers if he 8 Q. You also told Don Lemon. quote, "I am 9 didn't return the phone calls? 9 waiving the statute of limitations or any immunity." 10 A. Because they len messages, presumably. 10 A. That's right. 22 Q. With names that identified them as 11 Q. You were then subsequently asked to waive 12 lawyers; is that right? 12 the statute or limitations and refined to, correct? 13 MR. SCOTT: You're arguing with the 13 A. Absolutely false. 14 witness-- 14 I waived the statute of limitations by 15 A. I don't know the answer to that. 15 submitting a statement under oath. Had I not 16 MR. SCAROLA: No, fm trying to find out 16 submitted that statanent under oath. the statute of 17 whether there's any logical basis for the 17 limitations would have been long gone. But by 18 stories that the witness is telling. 18 stating wider oath categorically that I did not have 19 MR. SCOTT: And I think he's trying to 19 any sexual contact with her, I waived the statue of 20 explain it. And I think he's trying to do it 20 limitations and could be prosecuted for the next 21 in an easy. slow format. So, you blow -- 21 five or so years for perjury in what I said was 22 MR. SCAROLA: Okay. Well, let's take it 22 false. 23 easy- 23 But what I said was true. SO I have no 24 MR. SCOTT: -- if we all take — if we all 24 fear of any statute of limitations or any criminal 25 take the tension down here, maybe we can get 25 prosecution. So, yes. I did waive the statute of 14 (Pages 229 to 232) www.phippsreporting.com (888)811-3408 EFTA01116732 1 2 3 4 $ 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 233 limitations. yes. Q. You refused to waive the statute of limitations with regard to sexual crimes, correct? A. I didn't refuse anything. I didn't feel I had any obligation to respond to you. And I did not. Q. So, you were asked to waive the statute of limitations with regard to your sexual crimes and you refused to respond? A. I was asked by you, utterly inappropriately, and what I had said -- and if you check what I said, I said if any reasonable prosecutor were to investigate the case and find that there was any basis, I would then waive the statute of limitations. I didn't waive the statute of limitations because you, a lawyer, for two unprofessional, unethical lawyers asked me to do so, what obligation do I have to respond to you? Q. Well, you have no obligation to respond to me at all, Mr. Dershowitz, except now while sou are under oath and I am asking you questions and I would greatly appreciate you responding to the questions that I ask. MR. SCOTT: I think lies trying. 235 1 Q. And by dropping the dint on the media when 2 they Bled it, you Intended to convey the message 3 that Paul Cassel: and Bradley Edwards intentionally 4 generated the focus of press attention on that filing; is that correct? 6 A. Absolutely. Absolutely without any doubt. 7 Why else would they have brought Prince Andrew into 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 ding 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. 234 1 BY MR. SCAROLA: 2 Q. You made the further statement in that 3 sane 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 n filing was done virtually on the eve of New Year's 12 on a day that the press was completelydead. And 13 nonetheless. immediately upon the filing, I got a 14 bamge of phone calls that led me to conclude and 15 led many, many, many other lawyers who called me to 16 conclude that obviously somebody tipped somebody off 17 that they didn't just happen to file -- to find in 18 the middle of an obscure pleading which didn't even 19 have a heading that indicated that I was involved or 20 anybody else was involved. 21 So, I'm certain that a dime was dropped to 22 somebody saying, by the way, you want an interesting 23 story. there's Prince Andrew of Great Britain and 24 Alan Dershowitz have been accused of sexual 25 misconduct. I still believe that 236 Q. But right now — right now could you 2 please tell us was there anything other thau 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 cant 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 anbarrassing 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 beat in close touch with 20 your clients or representatives on their behalf. 21 Q. What was the date of the e-mail — 22 A. 'don't know. 23 Q. — that you referenced in that response? 24 Q A.. Imrdoeinli.1 know. 25 15 (Pages 233 to 236) www.phippsreporting.com (888)811-3408 EFTA01116733 237 239 1 A. It was whenever -- I'm not sure I ever saw 1 MR. SCOTT: I think he's answered that 2 the date. He just quidcly showed me the e-mail and 2 twice. 3 I quickly looked at it. 3 A. It came after. It came after. 4 Q. The c-mall that you are referencing, in 4 BY MR. SCAROLA: 5 fact, occurred after you had begun all of your media 5 Q. Thank you, sir. On January 5, you made 6 appearances with respect to this filing — 6 another CNN Live appearance in an intervkw with 7 A. Let niche very clear about — 7 11212 Gorani. Do you recall that? 8 Q. — didn't it, sir? 8 A. I do not =all the name of the person — 9 A. Lel me be very clear about my media 9 Q. Take a look at the transcript, if you 10 appearances so that I— 10 would, please, page IS. 11 Q. How about just answering the questions? 11 MR. SCOTT: Take a moment to review the 12 A. I'm trying to answer the question. All of 12 transcripL please, Mr. Dasbowitz. 13 my media appearances -- 13 THE WITNESS: Page IS. 14 Q. The question is: Did it occur before or 14 MR. SCOTT: Take your time to review that. 15 after your media — your media appearances? That 15 A. Yeah, that name is not familiar to me but. 16 doesn't call for a speech — 16 of count, I remember doing an interview, yes. 17 A. It came — 17 BY MR. SCAROLA: 18 Q. — it calls for before or alter. 18 Q. All right, sir. And during the course of 19 A. It came before some and alter somc. Ii 19 that interview, you said: "There are flight 20 came, for example, before my appearance on the BBC 20 manifests. They will prove I was never on any 21 because they showed me the e-mail before they 21 private airplane with any young woman." Correct? 22 interviewed me for the BBC. So sonic occurred —it 22 A. Yes. 23 occurred before some and it occurred after sonic. 23 Q. Go to page 17, if you would. 24 Q. All right. So It Is your assertion that 24 A. Uh-huh. 25 this single egnall that you have made reference to 25 Q. At line 4 of transcript of that same 238 240 1 where Paul Cassell says "asks Dershowitz these 1 Interview, you said: "She made the whole thing up 2 questions" occurred before your —your media 2 out of whole cloth. I can prove it by flight 3 appearances and after your media appearances; Is 3 records. I can prove it by my travel records." 4 that correct? 4 Did you make those statements? 5 MR. SCOTT: Objection. form. argumentative 5 A. Yes• and the/re absolutely tone. 6 and repetitious. 6 Q. Okay. I am going to hand you every flight 7 A. It occurred before some of the media 7 record that has been produced in connection with 8 appearances, and it occurred after some of media 8 this litigation. 9 appearances. yes. 9 A. Uh-huh. 10 BY MR. SCAROLA: 10 MR. SCAROLA: Could we mark that as the 11 Q. Did It occur before your first media 11 next composite exhibit, please? 12 appearances? 12 (Thereupon. marked as Plaintiff 13 A. My first media appearances came as the 13 Exhibit 6.) 14 result of phate calls I received from -- 14 MR. SCAROLA: And mark this as the next 15 Q. That's nonresponsive to my question, sir. 15 composite exhibit, which will be7. 16 A. -- newspapers -- 16 MR. SCOTT: These are all the flight 17 Q. I didn't ask you anything about what your 17 inanuals? 18 lint media appearances occurred — 18 MR. SCAROLA: As far as I know. 19 A. Yes, you did' . 19 MR. SCOTT: Clicay. 20 Q. — as a rank of. I asked you — 20 MR. SCAROLA: They're the only ones that 21 MR. SCOTT: Let him ask his question. 21 have been produced in discovery. If there arc 22 BY MR. SCAROLA: 22 more, I'm going to be interested to hear about 23 Q. -- whether the e-mail that you claimed to 23 it. 24 have seen was sent before or after your first media 24 (Thereupon. marked as Plaintiff 25 appearance? 25 Exhibit 7.) 16 (Pages 237 to 240) www.phippsreporting.com (888)811-3408 EFTA01116734 241 (Discussion off the record.) 2 THE WITNESS: What's Number 6 then? Tin 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 15 A I'm not clear what you're as mg. 16 Q. I want to know — 17 A. In which case? In which case am 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 Virginia 25 Roberts' allegations against you? 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 al some point in time. But I 12 knew for sure that the flight logs would exonerate 13 me because new was v r on Jeffrey Epstein's 14 plane wit any other young 15 underage sir s. . -new at to an absolute 16 certainty. And I was prepared to say it. fm 17 prepared to say it again under oath here. 18 And if your clients had simply cal led 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 clay 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. 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 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, l 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 actuate. 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 l knew that l would be 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 244 And there arc cases, legal ethics cases that say that lawyers arc obliged to make that phone call. lawyers are obliged to cheek if it's easy to check. lawyers are obliged to. particularly when the/re making extremely heinous charges against a fellow lawyer, do rely, very, detailed investigations. And they didn't do that in this case. Q. 1 will represent to you that I have handed you all of the available flight logs produced in the discovery of this case. Could you show me, please, which of these flight logs exonerates you? A. The absence of evidence is evidence of absence. None of the Ili t have me on an airplane wit None of the flight logs haven n the relevant period of time when iris that she had sex with me in the presence of another woman. So. the flight logs clearly exonerate me. There's absolutely no doubt about that. Q. Well, the flight logs, in fact, confirm that you were in the same places at the same time as ~on•t they? A. No, they do not Q. Do you — do you deny that they confirm 17 (Pages 241 to 244) www.phippsreporting.com (888)811-3408 EFTA01116735 1. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 245 that you were in the same place at the same time — A. Firs Q. — a MR. • question. THE MR. SCOTT: Then you answer the question. And Mr. Search will by to. you know, keep the emotion down, rm sure, so we can get through this with less acrimony between everybody here A. Your client has adamantly refused, as well as the lawyer -- BY MR SCAROLA: Q. No, sir, that's nonresponsive to my question. MR. SCOTT: Wait a minute. BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. My question is: Do you deny that the flight logs corroborate place at the same time 1111/Ill A. So the question i and, therefore, I must answer in this way. Your client -- Q. How to build a watch? MR. SCOTT: Wait a minute, you're cutting him off. He's been trying to answer the 247 1 ious to sec any tinrframes when 2 claims she was with me on the 3 is ,cams was with mc 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. 9 10 also? 11 A. No, I did not mean New York -- 12 Q. Oh. okay. 13 A. -- because New York is ray 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 timcframc. I was not in the airplane in 17 the relevant timeliame. 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 timcframcs, that question is an absolutely 25 inappropriate question. And the answer to it is no. — New York. Didn't you mean New York 246 1 question. 2 A. Yotr client has adamantly refused, an:liter 3 lawyers and your clients have refused to give me any 4 timcframes, any timcfratnes when your client claims 5 that she had improper -- falsely claims, 6 panniously claims that she had improper sexual 7 encounters with me. 8 So how can you possibly ask mc a question 9 that includes the w rd "tenet-Tames" when your client 10 has refused whe s refused to 11 give any time fram ossiblc that 12 the flight logs show me being in the same tint and 13 were place with her when she has refused to describe 14 any of the time 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 tuneframe shows that I 22 could have been in the same place at the same lime 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 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 248 Q. Well, Mr. Dershowltz, it might be inappropriate if you had not repeatedly made the public statements that the flight logs exonerate you. A. They do. Q. So what I am attempting to find out is the basis upon which you can contend that the flight logs exonerate you if you are now telling us you don't even know when it is that you are alleged to me place at the same time as Q. So how — how can you make both those statements? ausc I know the timeframe the , knew Jeffrey Epstein. And during that tinyframe. I can conclusively prove that I was never on Jeffrey Epstein's island where she claimed to have sex with nt. That the only time I was at the ranch was with my wife, with the Ask family, with my daughter, the house was under construction, we just simply stayed outside the house and looked around. That the manifests show I was never on Jeffrey Epstein's plane during that period of tin*. And the manifests show that I never 18 (Pages 245 to 248) www.phippsreporting.com (888)811-3408 EFTA01116736 249 251 1 flew down to Palm Beach during that relevant period 1 Q. Which of the manifests are you referring 2 of time. 2 to when you claim what you have claimed about the 3 So I have a timeframe not that was 3 manifests, Exhibit Number 6 or Exhibit Number 7? 4 provided by your client but that was provided by the 4 A. I can only tell you that I have reviewed 5 externalities of the case. And that timeframe 5 the manifests and they show, to me, that I was never 6 coupled with the manifests clearly exonerate me 6 on Jeffrey Epstein's airplane during the relevant 7 without any doubt 7 period of lime. That's Al can tell you now. 8 Q. I want to make sure that I understood what 8 Pm not in a position where I look at all 9 you just said. "I never flew down to Palm Beach 9 these documents now. If you point me to any 10 during the relevant timeframe"? 10 particular trip that shows that I was on Jeffrey 11 A. I never flew down and stayed at Jeffrey's 11 Epricin's plane. I would be happy to respond to 12 house in Palm Beach during that relevant period of 12 that. 13 time. 13 Q. There are two separate collections of 14 Q. Okay. So you want to withdraw the 14 documents purporting to be flight manifests for 15 statement that you never flew down to Palm Beach — 15 Jeffrey Epstein's plane. When you made the public 16 MR. SCOTT: Objection. 16 statements that you mode regarding the flight logs 17 BY MR. SCAROLA: 17 or manifests exonerating you, were you referring to 18 Q. — during that relevant period of time — 18 Exhibit Number 6 or Exhibit Number 7? 19 A. Lei me be -- 19 A. I have no recollection as to which 20 MR. SCOTT: Objection. 20 particular exhibits, which are formed for purposes 21 BY MR. SCAROLA: 21 of the legal case. I had reviewed. I know I had 22 Q. — and what you want to say is, "I never 22 reviewed the manifests. Not only had I reviewed the 23 flew down to Palm Beach and stayed at Jeffrey 23 manifests, but others reviewed the manifests and 24 Epstein's house during that timeframe period," 24 have conclusively told me that their review of the 25 correct? 25 manifests shows that I was right. 250 252 1 MR. SCOTT: Objection, argumentative-- 1 Q. Who else — 2 A. Let me be •• 2 MR. SCOTT: Avoid any attorney-client 3 MR. SCOTT: -- miseharacterization. 3 communications either with Ms. -- you know, 4 A. Let me be clear. A, I never flew down on 4 with your current lawyers, please. 5 Jeffrey Epstein's plane during the relevant period 5 THE WITNESS: Okay. 6 of time. 6 BY MR. SCAROLA: 7 BY MR. SCAROLA: 7 Q. Who told you that they had reviewed the 8 Q. Flew down to where? 8 manifests and they confirmed your position? 9 A. To Palm Beach or anywhere else. I was 9 MR. SCOTT: Objection, work product. 10 never on Jeffrey Epstein's plane, according to the 10 MR. SCAROLA: Well, you know. Mr. Scott 11 flight manifests and according to my own records, 11 he can't have it both ways. He can't insert 12 during the relevant period of time. 12 into the record the gratuitous statemenu that 13 I have independent records of my travel 13 he inserts into the record regarding others 14 which demonstrate that I was not in Jeffrey 14 having corroborated his inaccurate testimony, 15 Epstein's house during the relevant period of time. 15 and then refuse to tell us who those others 16 And -- but the — talking about the manifests, the 16 arc. It constitutes a waiver of whatever 17 manifests conclusively prove that I was never on the 17 privilege might exist. 18 airplane during the relevant period of time. 18 MR. SCOTT: He can -- he can tell who they 19 So I don't know how 19 arc. I'm just saying he can't go into 20 manifests show that I was wit 20 communications with them. 21 during the relevant period of t 21 MR. SCAROLA: Well, hes already said what 22 that. And if you would testify under oath to that, 22 the communication was. The communication was 23 I think you could be subject to pretty -• pretty 23 these manifests prove your position. 24 scathing cross examination. So your statement is 24 MR. SCOTT: And he's answered that because 25 categorically false. sir. 25 based on his review of them, Mr. Searola. 19 (Pages 249 to 252) www.phippsreporting.com (888)811-3408 EFTA01116737 253 255 1 BY MR. SCAROLA: 1 MIL INDYKE: Objection. This is Darren. 2 Q. Who told you that the manifests confirm 2 Anything that relates to your conversations 3 the accuracy of your public statements? 3 with Jeffrey — 4 MR. SCOTT: If it involves lawyer-client 4 THE REPORTER: He's going to have to speak 5 privilege, don1 answer it. 5 up. 6 THE WITNESS: Okay. 6 MR. SCOTT: You're going to have to speak 7 BY MR. SCAROLA: 7 up a little bit more. Counsel. 8 Q. You're refusing to answer? 0 MR. INDYKE: Objection. This is Darren 9 A. No, I would like— 9 Indyke. Anything that Alan might have to say 10 MR. SCOTT: Instruct you not to answer. 10 to that, to the extent they are covered under 11 A. -- to answer. But rye been instmcted 11 conversations with Jeffrey Epstein, privileged 12 not to answer. I would like to answer. 12 under attomey.client privileges as well as 13 You've made a statement -- 13 common interest privileges. 14 MR. SCOTT: There's no question pending. 14 MR. SCOTT: Do you understand? 15 THE WITNESS: But he node a statement -- 15 THE WITNESS: I do. 16 MR. SCOTT: But there's no question 16 BY MR. SCAROLA: 17 pending, sir. 17 Q. To which your response was: "Sure, sure, 18 BY MR. SCAROLA: 18 certainly I have been his lawyer and I did speak to 19 Q. What does it mean to make something up out 19 him about It- I wanted to make sure that his memory 20 of whole cloth? 20 and mine coordinated about when I was at his island. 21 A. It means that nr 21 He was able to check I was able to check. I 22 clients -- 22 checked with my friends who went with me." 23 ' • I asked you anything 23 Did you make that answer to that question? 24 a I haven't asked you 24 A. Yes. 25 anything about my clients. 25 Q. Disclosing the contents of your 254 256 1 I want to know what the words "making 1 communication with Jeffrey Epstein, correct? 2 something up out of whole cloth" mean. 2 A. I disclosed that I had spoken to him to 3 A. I said those words in the context of 3 find out whether he had any records of when I was on 4 4 his island. And, yes. 56 Illat's -- that's finc. Go 5 E: MR. INDYK Again, this is Darren Indyke. 6 Jeffrey does not waive any attorney-client 7 BY MR. SCAROLA: 7 privileges here. 8 Q. What do the words mean? 8 BY MR. SCAROLA: 9 s absolutely no basis for 9 Q. Well, the reason why you were able to 10 im that she had any sexual 10 answer that question and discuss with the mess what 11 con wan cit. at the story was entirely false. 11 Jeffrey Epstein was telling you was because you 12 I don't know where the metaphor derives about whole 12 weren't his lawyer at that time, right? 13 cloth, but certainly that's the common 13 A. No. I was his lawyer at that time. I'm 14 understanding. And I repeat under oath that 14 still his lawyer. 15 de up the entire story about 15 Q. Oh, what were you representing him on 16 having sex contact with Inc out of whole cloth. 16 then - 17 Q. During the course of the same interview 17 A. The ongoing.- 18 that we have been referencing with Hata Gorani — 18 Q. — that is, on January — 19 for the record, that's FI-A-L-A, G-O-R-A-N-I. 19 MR. SCOTT: Whoa. 20 A. What page? 20 BY MR. SCAROLA: 21 Q. Page 19. 21 Q. — on January 5,2015? 22 You were asked: "I'm wondering, have you 22 A. The ongoing-- 23 spoken to Jeffrey Epstein about this since these 23 MR. INDYKE My objection stands. 24 allegations came out in this suit in the United 24 MR. SCOTT: You can answer what you were 25 States? Have conversations happened there?" 25 representing him on. I think. 20 (Pages 253 to 256) www.phippsreporting.com (888)811-3408 EFTA01116738 257 259 1 A. The ongoing issues -- 1 Q. — the last 10 years? 2 MR. SCOTT: But nothing about 2 A. I would say 15 -- 3 ccovnunkrations. 3 Q. Last IS — a A. Right. The crigoing issues relating to the 4 A. -- years. 5 NPA, which continue to this day. And I regard 5 Q. — how about the last 20 years? 6 myself as his lawyer basically on all those — all 6 A. thaw -- I don't think so. 7 those issues. 7 Q. Okay. 8 BY MR. SCAROI.A: 8 A. As I stand here today. I have no 9 Q. So, when the pleadings were filed in the 9 recollection of ever being in New Mexico except to 10 Crime Vitt' • rding your conduct in 10 visit the Ashes in January of 2000. 11 relationship t and Jeffrey 11 I'm 77 years old. I've lived a long life. 12 Epstein, you were an still are his lawyer in the 12 It is certainly possible that at some earlier point 13 Crime Victim's Rights Act case; is that correct? 13 in my life — I mean, I've been in most of the 14 A. I certainly am bound by lawyer-client 14 states. But I have no recollection of ever being in 15 privilege and communications, yes. 15 New Mexico. 16 Q. Okay. You go on to say in that same 16 And I can tell you unequivocally the only 1 7 interview: "Only once in my life have I been in 17 time I was ever at Jeffrey Epstein's ranch was that 18 that area," referring to New Mexico. 18 one time with my wife with the Ashes, with my 19 A. Yes. 19 daughter. And we only stayed there for an hour and 20 Q. "Only once in my life did my travel 20 the house was not completed. It was under 21 records show I was In New Mexico.' 21 construction. And I certainly did not have any 22 A. Uh•hula 22 sexual encounter or any encounter with Virginia 23 Q. Is that an accurate statement? 23 Roberts during that visit. 24 A. To the best of my knowledge. I have no 24 MR. SCAROLA: Move to strike the 25 recollectionof being in New Mexico other than 25 unresponsive portions of the answer. 258 260 1 during that visit to the Ashes, which was not during 1 MR. SCOTT: We don't agree on that point, 2 the •- the narrower timcframe. 2 so let's go ahead. 3 The narrower litnefraine, remember, is 3 MR. SCAROLA: It's of any help. I can 4 ts Jeffrey Epstein in the late 4 agree that you don't agree to any of my 5 summer. the summer just before she's turning 16, of 5 objections. 6 1999. She says she didn't commence having sexual 6 MR. SCOTT: No. that's not true. I mean, 7 activities with any of Epstein's friends until nine 7 I'm trying to work with you, sir. 8 months later. That world put it in March or April 8 I have to tell you, this -- this is 9 of 2000. This visit occurred in January of 2000. 9 obviously one of thc most acrimonious 10 Ifs the only time I recall having been in 10 depositions I've sat through in my 40 plus 11 New Mexico. 11 years because of the personalities involved 12 Q. Okay. I want to be sure now. You're not 12 here and because of the personal issues. And 13 Just saying that you were only at Jeffrey Epstein's 13 it's quite difficult for everybody in this 14 ranch In New Mexico once; you are confirming your 14 room. 15 statement on national television that you have only 15 MR. SCAROLA: I agree. 16 been in New Mexico one time? 16 MR. SCOTT: And all I'm saying, and my 17 A. My recollection right new is that I was 17 client is -- who's 77, is trying to defend his 18 only there once. I have no — no other recollection 18 life. And I understand you're trying to 19 of -- it's conceivable when I was a very young man, 19 vigorously •• and you're a great lawyer -- 20 I could have been there. But I have no recollection 20 represent your clients. And it's — this is 21 of having been there. It certainly —certainly I 21 not the typical deposition. And we're trying 22 haven't been there recently. And during the 22 our very best, both of us. 23 relevant time period, I know I haven't been there 23 MR. SCAROLA: Thank you. And you're 24 Q. "Recently" means — 24 right, you and I do agree on something. 25 A. Fifteen •• 25 MR. SCOTT: As you said yesterday, more 21 (Pages 257 to 260) www.phippsreporting.com (888)811-3408 EFTA01116739 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 Inc because I 12 knew fort 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 arc facts. And I just wasn't in an 20 contact or any sexual contact wit 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 Potter of the Harvard Business 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 39 20 21 22 23 24 25 263 A. Where? Where? Can you point to that? BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. Well, I'm asking you, sir, based wain your superb memory whether you remember having said — MR. SCOTT: No, were going to do — BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. — on Jan — MR. SCOTT': lie's going to take a moment to review the transcript and and that's any witness is entitled to do that. So why don't we take a break, hen review transcript and well come back? We've been going an hour -- MR. SCAROLA: Because I haven't asked him a question about the transcript. MR. SCOTT: You've asked -- MR. SCAROLA: I'm asking him a question about his recollection. MR. SCOTT: Based upon what he said in the transcript MR. SCAROLA: No. fm asking him whether he has a recollection of having madc public statements that within an hour, he had gathered the documents that proved his innocence, exonerated him. 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. 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 Ask. lie 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. My, very quickly 14 were able to gather information that conclusively 15 would prove that she was lying about me having had 16 SG( 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 deliberatelyand 20 willfully about two instances where she in great 21 detail claims she had had sex, I think you can be 22 clear that you should discount any other any 23 other false allegations. 24 MR. SCOTT: We've been going for an hour. 25 Let's take a break for a few minutes. Then we 22 (Pages 261 to 264) www.phippsreporting.com (888)811-3408 EFTA01116740 265 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? First of all. I move to strike the 8 unresponsive speech. 9 And now read back the last question. if 10 you would. 11 (Requested portion read back as follows:) 12 THE REPORTER: "Do you remember having 13 made those statements?" 14 Do you want me to read prior to that? 15 MR. SCAROLA: No, that's fine. That's the 16 question that I asked. 17 BY MR. SCAROLA: 18 Q. Is I he answer yes? 19 A. I don't lung:tibia specifically. !do 20 generally remember having said that your clients 21 ' " conclusive proof that 22 rag about Inc and that I 23 f come, it was false-- 24 MR. SCAROLA: Tom — 25 A. -- been able to uncover such proof. 267 1 and then explained it but now you have it 2 directly answered. So were were 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 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 well come back and 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 try to answer it in a yes or no if l 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 bitch -- 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 WC stoppedand wc an 24 take a break. 25 MR. SCOTT: He previously had said that 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 268 going to travel from Boston to Florida and canceled travel arrangements from Boston to Florida this past weekend, that would have been a misrepresentation. correct? A. lhavc no idea what you're talking about. I'm retry. Q. Well, what Is it that you don't understand about that question? Either you were in — A. The basis -- Q. — Boston and were planning on traveling from Boston to Florida this past weekend or the last time you were In Boston was two weeks ago, so you couldn't have been planning — Q. — on traveling from Boston to Florida. A. I was actually in Boston -- now that checked my calendar, I was actually in Boston -- here. I have aha. It says — and my calendar says I was in Boston. Then it says leave for Florida, but that got changed. Yes, that got changed, right. Q. May I sec that, please? A. No, this is my personal calendar. Q. Yes, I'm sorry, but If you refer to anything to refresh your recollection — 23 (Pages 265 to 268) www.phippsreporting.com (888)811-3408 EFTA01116741 A. I have — 269 1 2 Q. — dining thecoarse of the deposition, I 2 3 am permitted to examine It. 3 4 A. I have lawyer-client privileged 4 5 information in hem. so I can't give it to you. I S 6 can give it to you in a redacted form. I have a 7 quote from David Bois in here, which I'm sure — 7 a MR. SCOTT: Don't - 8 9 A. — nobody is going to want to sec — 9 10 MR. SCOTT: Well make a copy and give it 10 11 to you. 11 12 MR. SCAROLA Thank you. Would you hand 12 13 it to your counsel, please? 13 19 MR SCOTT: On that note. hold onto that. 14 15 TIIE WITNESS: But I need that back. 15 16 MR. SCOTT: Of course. Don't worry. 16 17 MR. SIMPSON: Hold on to it. 17 18 MR. SCOTT: That's why I saw it to him 18 19 because I'd lose it. 19 20 BY MR. SCAROLA: 20 21 Q. Before January 21.2015, what Information 21 22 dld you have regarding what Bradley Edwards and Paul 22 23 Cassell had p Investigating 23 29 the accuracy o lions 24 25 against you? 25 270 1 A. Well. first, I knew that anything they 1 2 gathered -• 2 3 MR. IN DYKE: Objection to the extent that 3 4 requires — 4 5 MR. SCOTT: Whoa. 5 6 MS. MCCAWLEY: you to disclose anything 6 7 you gave -- 7 8 THE COURT REPORTER: I can't hem. 9 I'm sorry, Mr. Indyke, can you repeat your 9 10 objection? 10 11 MR. SCOTT: Can you say that a little 11 12 louder? 12 13 MR. INDYKE: Darren Indyke. I would 13 14 object to the extent Mal your answer would 14 15 disclose anything you -- you obtained or 15 16 learned or any knowledge you gained in 16 17 connection with your representation of Jeffrey 17 18 Epstein. 18 19 MR. SCOTT: Do you understand that 19 20 inSIniction? 20 21 THE WITNESS: I do, yes. 21 22 Could you repeat the question? 22 23 BY MR. SCAROL A: 23 24 Q. Yes, sir. I want to know what information 24 25 you had regarding what Bradley Edwards and Paul 25 271 Cassell had done in the course of their invest' ' ' y of the accusations made ;dust you? A. Well, list and oremost, the most important piece of information I had was my Finn and complete knowledge and memory that I had never had any sexual contact with odor any circumstances or a . So I knew -- Q. The question I'm asking, sir — A. this infatuation — Q. — focuses on what knowledge you had regarding what Bradky Edwards and Paul Cassell did In the course of their investigation of the credibility of the accusations against you made by A. That was the first and most important bil of information namely, that I couldn't have done it and didn't do it. So I knew for sure that they could not have conducted any kind of valid investigation. Second. I knew from — that they also Ind a later from Mr. Scuola that said that multipk witnesses lad placed me in the preserec of Jeffrey Epstein and underage girls and I knew (hat 272 Mr. Scarola's letter was a patent lie. And they had access to that letter and that information. I also knew they were relying on depositions of two house people of Jeffrey Epstein. And I've read these two depositions. And I'm sure I knew of other -- other information as well. I knew that they had stated -- I knew that they had slated publicly, or you had stated publicly on their bchalf as a witness, that you had stated publicly that you had tried to depose me on these -- on this subject. I knew that that was a blatant lie and unethical conduct because nobody ever tried to depose me on this subject. I had never been accused, nor did I have any knowledge that anybody had ever falselyaccused me of having any sexual encounters. And I had a great deal of information about the paucity or absence of any legitimate investigation. And I also knew that they hadn't called nc. they hadn't tried to call me, there was no record of an attempt to call me or c-nuil Inc. My e-mail is available on my website. My phone number is available on my website. The most basic thing they could have done, as courts have said. what you're accusing somebody 24 (Pages 269 to 272) www.phippsreporting.com (888)811-3408 EFTA01116742 273 1 of outrageous, honible, inexcusable misconduct. at 2 least call the person and ask thcm if they can 3 dispose 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 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 nn 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, anytime. 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 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 — MR. SCOTT: What you arc reading from? 6 MR. SCAROLA: I'm reading from the 7 deposition transcript. 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 Akssl and — 13 MR. SCOTT: fat me object to the —first 14 of all, let inc object to this fonmi 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 inproper. 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 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 start 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 byname in a manner that 24 completely exculpated me, yes. 25 Q. Okay. Well, let's - let's takes look at 276 1 answers have been given during the course of this 2 deposition Ns filch you contend completely exonerates 3 you? 4 "Question: Do • tion 5 of VR, referring t caning to 6 the house when Prince Andrew was there? 7 "Answer: It could have been, but I'm not B sure. 9 "Question: When Mr. Dershowitz was 10 ebbing — 11 "Answer: Uh-huh. 12 "Question: — how often did he come? 13 "Answer: lie 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 rypkally? 17 "Answer. Two to three days. 18 "Question: Did he have manages 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 25 (Pages 273 to 276) www.phippsreporting.com (888)811-3408 EFTA01116743 277 279 1 oils and towels? 1 is a third-year student at Harvard, were anthem 2 "Answer: Yes, ma'am- 2 with me. Thal was the only time that I stayed over 3 "Question: And did you ever have occasion 3 more than one night. And I never stayed even one 4 to go upstairs and clean up after the massages? 4 night during the relevant timeframe. 5 "Answer: Yeah, uh-huh. 5 But most importantly, he gives no 6 "Question: Did you ever find any 6 timcframc. And clearly his reference to the sex 7 vibrators In that area? 7 toys is a reference to the part of the house that I 8 "Answer: Yes. I told him yes. 8 was never permitted in and never entered. 9 "Question: Would you describe for me what 9 Q. What Is the question that you think you 10 Idnds of vibrators you found? 10 were answering? 11 "Answer. I'm not too familiar with the 11 A. Whether -- 12 names, but they were like big dildos, what they 12 MR. SCOTT: He was explaining to you 13 call the big rubber things like that 13 exactly why he felt that that was 14 (indicating). And I used to go and put my 14 inappropriate, which is exactly what you asked 15 gloves on and pick them up, put them in the 15 him. 16 sink, rinse it off and put it in Ms. Maxwell — 16 MR. SCAROLA: No. it is not 17 Ms. :Maxwell had in her closet, she had like a 17 MR. SCOTT: Well, it is my recollection, 16 laundry basket. And you put laundry in. She 18 so I don't know -- 19 have full of those toys." 19 MR. SCAROLA: Well, then — 20 Is that testimony that exonerates you, 20 MR. SCOTT: I think he was defending -- 21 Mr. Dershowite? Is that what you were referring to? 21 MR. SCAROLA: Let me try the same question 22 MR. SCOTT: Let me — objection to the 22 over again 23 form. improper cross examination by taking 23 MR. SCOTT: I think he was defending 24 excerpts out of depositions of witnesses. 24 his -- his position. 25 25 THE WITNESS: Right. 278 280 1 BY MR. SCAROIA: 1 BY MR SCAROLA: 2 Q. Is it your contention that that testimony, 2 Q. The question was: Is that part of the 3 under oath, of your friend. Mr. Epstein's staff 3 time that you claim exonerates you? 4 person, exonerates yon? 4 A. Well, I think if you read the whole 5 A. First, a little background. Mr. Alessi 5 testimony. it clearly exonerates me and I think that 6 was fired for theft of material from Mr. Epstein, so 6 pan of the testimony in no way inculpates me and no 7 Mr. Alessi was not on a friendly basis with Jeffrey 7 reasonable person reading that could use that as a 8 Epstein. 8 basis for making allegations that I had sexual 9 Second, the description of the dildos and 9 encounters or misconduct with 10 sex toys clearly refer to the area of the house 10 So. when -- if that's thebest test unary 11 that I was never in. the area of Ms. Maxwell's room. 11 that your unprofessional clients relied on. then 12 rather than the area of the room that I stayed in 12 clearly that exonerates me. 13 Third. he gives no timeframe for the 13 Again, the absence of evidence is evidence 14 visits. 14 of absence. And the very idea that this is seen as 15 And. fourth, he eathinly di ' • 15 some basis for condo 16 way confirm that I was there toll 16 encounters with •• wit why wasn't 17 was there. His answer was simply la was ere 17 he asked did he ever see me have a massage by 18 from time to time. I Ic's wrong about that. During 18 Did he ever sec me have a sexual 19 the relevant timcframe. I was never in the house. 19 encounter Did he ever go to 20 And even taking outside the relevant 20 the room I was staying in and find any sex tor? 21 timefratne, the only time I was in the house for more 21 The answers to all those questions, if 22 than one day was when my family, my wife, my son, my 22 truthful. would be no. 23 daughter-in-law, my then probably seven or 23 Q. What was Mr. Alessi's motive against you? 24 eight-year-old granddaughter, who just graduated 24 You've told us he was fired by Jeffrey Epstein. so 25 Harvard. and niy probably four-year-old grandson, who 35 he may have had some motive against Mr. Epstein. 26 (Pages 277 to 280) www.phippsreporting.com (888)811-3408 EFTA01116744 281 1 What was his motive against you? 2 A. I was Jeffrey Epstcin's friend and lawyer 3 and, in fact -- well. 1 can't get into this. But I 4 can say this, l 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 al 13 you because you assisted in getting him fired? 14 A. It's -- 15 MR. SCOTT: Objection, 16 ntischaracterization. 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 283 1 A. Ycs. 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. Andaman 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 Bob Josefsberg 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 completdy 21 irrelevant to the issues in this case. 22 Whatever Mr. Josefsberg thinks has nothing to 23 do with this lawsuit. This is all your effort 24 to try to put Josefsberg into this case to try 25 to give some justification to your position. 1 2 a 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 282 exculpatory because it has no ' had any sexual encounter wit And if I were a lawyer MR. SCOTT: It's okay? A. — I certainly would not base this heinous accusation on that flimsy read. BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. You know the context in which that deposition was taken, don't you? A. I don't recall it as I'm sitting here today. Q. Do you remember that the lawsuit in which that deiwItion nos taken was a lawsuit in which being represented by Bob A. No. Q. You know Bob Josefsberg, don't you? A. We -- we were classmates at law school. Q. You know Bob Josefsberg to be an extremely ethical, highly professional and extraordinarily well-respected lawyer, right? A. Absolutely, yes. Q. Absolutely? A. Yeah. Q. A man of impeccable honesty and integrity? 284 1 A. I'll answer that question. 2 BY MR. SCAROLA: 3 Q. Thank you. 4 A. And I also know Bob Josefsberg and know 5 that he would never nuintain a friendship, as he has 6 with me, if he believed that I was one of the. quote, academicians -- 8 Q. Welt, 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 Id 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 arc 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 arc irrelevant utilizing Bob Josefsberg's 27 (Pages 281 to 284) www.phippsreporting.com (888)811-3408 EFTA01116745 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 Bob Josefsberg 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 Bob 22 Josefsberg believed those allegations to be true, 23 right? 24 A. I believe that — I know that Bob 25 Josefsberg would never maintain a friendship with 287 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 ad ethically and would. A. not represent 5 not make any false statements the way your clients 6 made than, and that I wish your clients had the 7 ethics of Bob Josefsberg 8 Q. You then agree that if Bob Josefsbcrg 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 limes. 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 cne 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? 286 1 me, as he has, if he believed that 1 was one of 2 those academicians. Bob Josefsberg knows tint 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 Bob Josefsberg would 7 never maintain a friendship with me if he believed 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 Bob Josefsberg. to the 12 FBI, to the U.S. attorney. or even, sir, to you and 13 Bradley Edwanls, as she says in 2000,1 think, 'I I. 14 1 think she made up this stay on the eve of the 15 filing in 2014. 16 Q. You do agree that Bob Josefsberg 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 Bob Josefsberg 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 288 1 A. Alberto Rodriguez -- 2 Q. No, sir, Alfredo Rodriguez. 3 A. Alfredo Rodriguez, I never knew him by 4 name. Ile was, of course, there out — well outside S of the limeframe 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 Ile was criminally prosecuted, to my 10 memory. for having stolen material and fumed 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 rue. 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 — 28 (Pages 285 to 288) www.phippsreporting.com (888)811-3408 EFTA01116746 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 following testimony having been given by Mr. Alfredo 6 Rodriguez In a deposition that was taken on 7 August 7,2009? "Question: Mr. Rodriguez, you staled last 9 lime 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 Ilartiard named Alan Dershowitz? 15 "Answer: Yes, ma'am 16 "Question: And arc 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? 291 1 that testimony? 2 A. Yes. 3 MR. SCOTT: Objection. This is totally 4 improper cross examination of a witness by 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 admissible at trial. And in any ease, he never 9 actually has my client doing any of the thing, 10 that you've accused him of. 11 Go about, let's go ahead and do it. 12 Answer the question. Answer the question. 13 MR. SCAROLA: He did. 14 A. Yes, I iumura....r 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 Katherine Ezell, E-Z-E-L-L from Bob 24 Josefsberg's office, who had filed the complaint 25 alleging that you had — excuse me, that Virginia 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 w•as there? 8 "Answer: Yes, ma'am. 9 "Questio • • 10 for instance 11 "Answer: es, 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 292. 1 Roberts 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 totallyabsolve 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 reeved just Eke 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 arc 22 doing is coaching him. 23 MR. SCOTT: No, I'm not. 24 MR. SCAROLA: Improperly. 25 MR. SCOTT: And you are improperly reading 29 (Pages 289 to 292) www.phippsreporting.com (888)811-3408 EFTA01116747 293 295 1 excerpts out of a deposition to try to imply 1 Do you remember that testimony having been 2 something when there's other parts that totally 2 given? 3 arc inconsistent with that. And if you're 3 A. I assume that when your clients used the 4 going to do that, then he has the ability under 4 trartsdipt as a basis for their false conclusion 5 our rules to review the entire transcript of 5 that I was guilty, they reed the whole transcripts. 6 the deposition and that's what fin permitting 6 not just the -- 7 him to do, just like when were in court. 7 BY MR. SCAROLA: 8 MR. SCAROLA: What Ian doing. 8 Q. Every word. 9 Mr. Scott -- what I am doing, Mr. Scott -- 9 MR. SCOTT: Don't interrupt him. 10 MR. SCOTT: Have you read that now, sir? 10 BY MR. SCAROLA: 11 MR. SCAROLA: -- is reviewing the evidence 11 Q. You don't need to assume that. I will 12 that was relied upon by Bradley Edwards and by 12 stipulate they read every word. 13 Paul Cassell in coming to the conclusion that 13 MR. SCOTT: Mr. Scarola, he's speaking. 14 the allegations that had been made by Virginia 14 You don't have a right to do this. 15 Roberts were, in fact, credible allegations. 15 A. And if you read every word, you will see 16 MR. SCOTT: And I'm -- 16 that its totally exculpatory. that I have no idea 17 MR. SCAROLA: Because your own client has 17 whether there were any young women in one part of 18 acknowledged that this is information that was 18 the house when I was in another part of the house. 19 available to both him and to them back in 2009. 19 It's completely consistent with my testimony that I 20 MR. SCOTT: And what I am doing is showing 20 have never seen any underage women. Let's see. 21 him portions of the sank deposition that 21 And if you read the whole transcript. 22 totally take a different position from this 22 you'll see. I think: 23 witness from what you have read, so that this 23 "Was Dershowitz ever there when one of the 24 record is a complete record and not a partial 24 woman gave a massage? 25 record with your inference only. And I feel 25 "I don't notxria.: that. 294 296 1 that that's totally appropriate. If we were in 1 "Were you in — were you in any way 2 a counroom, a judge would permit him to do it. 2 attempting in your response to imply that 3 So you have your position and I have rt 3 Mr. Dershowitz had a massage by one of these 4 MR. SWEDF.R: Can we have the witness read 4 young ladies? 5 that? 5 "I don't know, sir. 6 BY MR. SCAROLA: 6 "You have no knowledge? 7 Q. Do you recall the following testimony 7 "No, sir. 8 having been given In that same deposition? 8 "And you certainly weren't implying that 9 "Question: All right. This is follow-up 9 that occurred: you just have no knowledge, 10 to questioning by Ms. Ezell. Ms. Ezell asked 10 correct? 11 you about Mr. Dershowitz being present in 11 "Answer: I don't know.' 12 Mr. Epstdn's home, and I think you said — I 32 And I would hope that your clients would 13 think you said Mr. Epstein and he and 13 be reading the whole thing in context, unlike what 14 Mr. Dershowitz were friends? 14 you've tried to do to try to create a false 15 "Answer: Yes. 15 impression that this testimony in any way exculpates 1.6 "Question: She also, I think, asked was 16 inc. 17 Mr. Dershowitz ever there when one of the young 17 I have to say if this is what they relied 18 women who gave a massage was present in the 18 on, my collimation of their unethical and 19 home. 19 unprofessional conduct has been strongly 20 "Answer: I don't remember that. 20 corroborated by that and you're helping my case. 21 "Question: That's where I want to clear 21 BY MR. SCAROLA: 22 up. Is It your testimony that Mr. Dershowitz 22 Q. Would it have been reasonable for Bradley 23 was there when any of the women came to 23 Edwards and Paul Cassell to have relied upon the 24 Mr. Epstein's home to give a massage? 24 detailed reports of Palm Beach pollee department? 25 "Answer: Yes." 25 A. I don't know. I don't know what the Palm 30 (Pages 293 to 296) www.phippsreporting.com (888)811-3408 EFTA01116748 297 299 1 Beach police depanment says. 1 this. 2 Q. You never read those reports? 2 A. Excuse me one second. 3 A. I don't know which reports you're 3 MR. SCOTT: You know, you think this is 4 referring to. 4 funny and I think this man's --and I think 5 Q. All of the reports about Jeffrey Epstein. 5 this man's -- 6 MR. SCOTT: Asked and answered yesterday 6 MR. SCAROLA: I think it's inipmper for 7 co this whole lint 7 you to be coaching the witness in the middle of 8 A. I probably did not read all the reports on 8 examination. If you think that there's 9 Jeffrey Epstein. rm sure I've read some of them. 9 something that needs to be brought out, you do 10 I do not recall -- 10 that in cross examination. You don't feed hint 11 MR. SCOTT: Be careful about any work -- 11 information that you want him to be reading in 12 attorney-diem privilege. 12 the middle of my examination of this witness. 13 THE WITNESS: Right. 13 MR. SCOTT: No. But it's also true that 14 A. I don't remember my name coming up. I was 14 under our rules, when you read portions of a 15 the lawyer during that period of time. 15 deposition, he has the ability to read other 16 BY MR. SCAROLA: 16 portions of the deposition which clarify the 17 Q. To the extent that Bradley Edwards and 17 answers. That's done in every courtroom on 18 Paul Cassell relied upon detailed reports fromthe 18 every time a witness -- you have selected 19 Palm Beach lice department in order to assess the 19 portions of it that am not accurate based on 20 credibility would It be 20 other portions and l am having him review them 21 reasonable for them to rely upon police reports? 21 since you did not offer him the deposition to 22 A. I would hope that they would rely on all 32 review. 23 the police reports, including the ones that showed 23 MR. SCAROLA: And that's what you do -- 24 that she was involved in criminal actions, including 24 MR. SCOTT: And I think that's totally 25 the owes that would show that she took money as an 25 Ricca -- 298 300 1 adult to provide sexual services to people. 1 MR. SCAROLA: -- in cross examination. It 2 I would hope they would look at all the 2 is — 3 reports, not just selected portions of those 3 MR. SCOTT: --to do. No -- 4 reports. 4 MR. SCAROLA: -- improper. 5 Q. Would that include the reports of the 5 MR. SCOTT: No. 6 Federal Bureau of Investigation? 6 MR. SCAROLA: There's no question pending 7 A. I would hope so. 7 as to which that's relevant. But Ids take a a Q. Would that include the information 9 look at whit you're showing him. 9 provided by the US. Attorney's Office? 9 MR. SCOTT: Sure. Why dolt you read it 10 A. I would sure hope so, and I could tell you 10 into the record? 11 that the — 11 1TIE WITNESS: I've read it. 12 Q. Would that include — 12 MR. SCOTT: Read it into the record so 13 A. Let me just say that the U.S. Attorney's 13 that Mr. Scarola is advised. 14 Office has told me unequivocally that my name never 14 A. 'clay. When Alan Dershowith was in the. 15 came tip in any context of any accusation against me 15 house, I understand you to say that these local 16 during the negotiations. 16 Palm Beach girls would conic over to the house 17 Q. Is this part of your work product that 17 while he was there, but you're not sure if he 18 you're waiving right now? 18 had a massage from any of these girls? 19 MR. SWEDER: No, no. 19 'Exactly. 20 A. My conversation with Jeffrey Simian is not 20 'And what would he do while these girls 21 work product. 21 were in the house? 22 MR. SCOTT: Here's a — 22 "Hc would read a book Mitt a glass of 23 BY MR. SCAROLA: 23 wine by the pool, stay inside. 24 Q. What Is the work product — 24 -Did he ever talk to any of the girls? 25 25 1 don't know, sir. MR. SCUI I: Excuse me. Please review 31 (Pages 297 to 300) www.phippsreporting.com (888)811-3408 EFTA01116749 301 303 1 "Certainly he knew they were there? 1 A. Let me answer. 'Rely" connotes to me that 2 1 don't know, sir." 2 they would place a heavy emphasis on that to the 3 That's the best you can do? That's really 3 exclusion of ocher things and that it would be 4 the best you can do? You think a professional 4 enough. And so my answer is, yes, they certainly 6 lawyer would make these allegations based on "I 5 should have read all the reports They certainly 6 don't know. sir." 6 should have read all the transcripts. But they also 7 MR. SCAROLA: Is there a question pending, 7 should have called me, they should have made other 8 Mr. Scott? 8 inquiry, and they should have made sure that they 9 MR. SCOTT: He's reading — you asked him 9 read all of these depositions and reports in 10 what he was reading-- 10 context. 11 MR. SCAROLA: Yes, sir. 11 And ifyou're implying that there are FBI 12 MR. SCOTT: -- front and I had him publish 12 reports that in any way inculpate me, that's 13 it. 13 I have from Former inconsistent with the information 14 MR. SCAROLA: Yeah, I brow, and then he 14 Chief of Assistant Jeffrey Sloman, who was prepared 15 went on to make a speech. So I know I don't 15 to file an affidavit saying that that wasn't the 16 have to do it. but I'm compelled to move to 16 case but was prevented front doing so by thc Justice 17 strike the unresponsive speeches. 17 Department. 18 MR. SCOTT: And I consider these to be a 18 MR. SCOTT: It's about noon now. So I 19 response to the interrogation that you did 19 guess we're heading — we're wrapping this up! 20 taking excerpts improperly and not having the 20 MR. SCAROLA: Not quite yet. 21 entire record in front of him, which he's 21 BY MR. SCAROLA: 22 entitled to do to make that the record is 22 that the allegations that 23 complete. And I intend to protect him in that 23 ade against Prince Andrew were 24 way. 24 well-founded allegations, correct? 25 25 A. I have absolutely no idea. fve met 302 304 1 BY MR. SCAROLA: 1 Prince Andrew on a number of occasions in a public 2 Q. So we have agreed that it was reasonable 2 context. He came and spoke in my class at Harvard 3 for Bradley Edwards and Paul Cassell, in assessing 3 law school. The dean then had a dinner in his -- or 4 the credibility o o rely upon 4 lunch in his honor. I was then invited to a dinner S poke reports, FBI reports, U.S. Attorney's Office 5 at the British Consulate. 6 information, and information from the Palm Beach 6 I've never seen him in the presence of any 7 County State Attorney's Office, correct? 7 underaged women, so I have absolutely no basis for 8 A. No. 0 reaching any conclusion whatsoever about 9 Q. No? 9 Prince Andrew. 10 A. No. It would not be enough for than to do 10 Q. So you don't know one way or another 11 that -- 11 whether those allegations arc true or false? 12 Q. I didn't ask you whether it was enough. 12 A. Neither do you. Nobody would know except 13 A. You said it was -- 13 two people. I imagine. But I daft know. Of course 14 Q. I asked you: Would It reasonable for them 14 not. 15 to rely upon those sources ' ' 15 Q. All right. 16 17 assessing the credibility of A. No( alone, not wi 16 17 A. But I presume -- Q. You say you have never seen him — 18 Q. That wasn't my question. 18 A. -- people innocent -- 19 A. -- other sources of information. 19 Q. — In the presence of any underaged women, 20 MR. SCOTT: Wait a minute. 20 but you've seen photographs of him in the presence 21 BY MR. SCAROLA: 21 of an underaged woman, correct? 22 Q. Well, what he's relying upon — 22 A. I have, yes. 23 MR. SCOTT: You're not the judge here. 23 MR. SCAROLA: May we mark this as the next 24 Let him -- ask a question and let him answer it 24 numbered exhibit, please. 25 and not cut him off, please. 25 A. And I want 10 note -- 32 (Pages 301 to 304) www.phippsreporting.com (888)811-3408 EFTA01116750 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 305 THE REPORTER: Hold on. Hold on. A. -- the absence of any -- MR. SCOTT: She can't take it down. THE WITNESS: Sony. (Thereupon. marked as Plaintiff Exhibit 8.) THE REPORTER: les okay. Go ahead. A. And I want to note the absence of any photograph of me wit BY MR. SCAROLA. Q. That's the photograph that you were referring to? A. rve seen this photograph in the newspapers. Q. Yes, sir. And the woman on the far tight of that photograph, who Is that? A. Ghislainc Maxwell. Q. The woman that you and your friend Jeffrey Epstein have traveled with repeatedly, correct? A. No. A woman who I may have traveled with on two or three occasions. I can't think of more times than that that I traveled with her, but it's possible But not -- I wouldn't say repeated occasions. I've -- Q. Well — 3 07 1 THE WITNESS: Excusc me, I need to a take 2 a vay 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. (Sidebar held off the record.) 9 MR. SCAROLA: While were waiting. let me 10 mark the next numbered exhibits as well. That 11 will save us sane 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 II. 21 (Thereupon, marked as Plaintiff 22 Exhibit I I.) 23 MR. SCAROLA: This is Number 12. 24 (Thereupon, marked as Plaintiff 25 Exhibit 12.) 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 or 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 arc identified by 16 abbreviations in the case — in case that is of some 17 assistance to you in answering the next series or 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.) 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 30B 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. S Q. The first document in that composite is a 6 page from — 7 MR. SCOTT: flues Number9. 8 BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. — is a page from your wife's calendar; is that correct? A. Yes. MR. SCOTT: Take a moment to review the exhibit, please. A. Yes, it looks like -- I'm looking at the first page. It looks like my wiles -- my wife's handwriting, yes. BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. And the second page is another page from your wife's calendar; is that correct? A. Looks like it, yes. Q. And — MR. SCOTT: Take the time to review it before you answer questions, please. A. Right 33 (Pages 305 to 308) www.phippsreporting.com (888)811-3408 EFTA01116751 309 3 1 1 1 BY MR. SCAROLA: 1 December. 2 Q. And can you determine from the calendar 2 Q. One shows the subsequent two months and 3 entries here where your wife Is during the period of 3 the — 4 time that's covered by these calendar entries? 4 A. Okay. 5 A. I would have to looks a panicular 5 Q. — other one shows -- 6 entry. If it describes where she is. yes. 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. Okay. Well, tell me where she is. 7 Q. — the preceding and following month, 8 A. What day? 8 correct? 9 MR. SCOTT: Which one? What point? 9 A. Yes, that does look like it's December of 10 BY MR. SCAROLA: 10 2000. yes. 11 Q. The period covered by this calendar 11 Q. Okay, sir. So look at the calendar and 12 between December 7 and December 13. 12 tell me where It appears your wife is during this 13 A. What year? 13 period of time. 14 Q. You know what, I can't tell you what year 14 A. Thc whole period of time? 15 It is from these calendars. So you tell me. 15 MR. SCOTT: Please read the exhibit, all 16 1 suggest to you that this Is a calendar 16 the pages, thoroughly, so that you have a full 17 from December of 2000, since the next two months at 17 context. 18 the top of the calendar are January 2001 and 18 A. it says. A.D. in Boston. That means I was 19 February 2001. So let's assume that since it is a 19 in — in Boston. 20 page from a calendar that appears to be December of 20 It says Charleston, New York. It says 21 2000, that It's December of 2000. 21 book fair. It says book fair. It says A.D. in 22 That would be a reasonable conclusion, 22 Boston. 23 wouldn't It? 23 It then says the Halbrcichcs arrive. 24 A. I have no idea. 24 They — they were probably our guests. 25 Q. You don't know? 25 310 312 1 A. I don't know. I nimn,1 daft know -- you 1 BY MR. SCAROLA: 2 said you daft -- you can't tell what the year is, 2 Q. Your guests at home in Cambridge, 3 so .. 3 Massachusetts, ighe 4 Q. Well, I'm telling — 4 A. No, I don't know. I don't know. 5 A. — I cant tell what the year is. 5 Halbreicha arrive. 6 Q. — you that It appears to be December 2000 6 And Ican't really tell from here where 3 because the next two months at the top of the 7 Carolyn S. McDonalds — lets sm. this is 2000 8 calendar are January of 2001 and February of 2001. 8 and what year? 2001. 2000. Yeah, yeah. 9 A. I only sec -- I'm sorry. we're probably 9 So tell me what you're looking for. I'll 10 looking at different things. I sec November 2000, 10 try to -- 11 December 2000. I don't see January or anything like 11 Q. I want to know where your wife was during 12 that. Maybe you can show than to inc. Oh. it's on 12 this period of time if you can tell from the 13 the first page. 13 calendar entries. 14 Q. First page, yes, sir. 14 A. Well, she may have been in -- there's 15 A. So it's in reverse order. 15 sancthing about Charleston. There's something about 16 Yeah, so the pages arc in reverse order. 16 New Yak. There's something about me being in 17 The lint page says on top January 2001, 17 Boston. I really can't ten much beyond that. 18 February 2001 and the second page says 18 Q. Okay. So you don't know one way or 19 November 2000. December 2000. yeah. 19 another from these calendar entries where your wife 20 Q. So It appears we're looking at 20 was during this period of time; Is that correct? 21 December 2000, correct? 21 A. I can't tell that from this catty, no. 22 A. When we're looking at which page? When 22 Q. What we can tell from the entry in the 23 we-- 23 bottom right-hand corner — 24 Q. Both pages. 24 MR. SCOTT: Which page? 25 A. Well, one is Januaty/Fcbmaty and one is 25 A. Which page? 34 (Pages 309 to 312) www.phippsreporting.com (888)811-3408 EFTA01116752 313 1 BY MR. SCAROLA: 2 Q. Of the lint page of this composite is 3 that there is a notation that says Alan Dershowitz 4 II:45 a.m., New York City, right? 5 A. Eleven -- A.D. I I A5 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. 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, iota 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 Ncw 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 eau y is 22 I:30, Jeff, correct? 23 A. Right. Yeah. 24 Q. And that's a reference to Jeffrey Epstein. 25 correct? 314 1 A. Wc 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 lad- 6 MR. SCOTT: We provided hundreds and 7 hundreds of gages. You're picking out one. 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. h 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. 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. '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 II 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 hmen'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. Ifs the next page here? 24 Q. Yes, sir. 25 A. Okay. 35 (Pages 313 to 316) www.phippsreporting.com (888)811-3408 EFTA01116753 317 319 1 Q. December 11,2000, PB1 to Teterboro. 1 that, but that you were in New York at the same time 2 passengers, Jeffrey Epstein — 2 Jeffrey Epstein - 3 A. Wait a second. I have to find it. 3 A. And that Carolyn -- 4 MR. SCOTT: Well, let him -- let him read 4 Q. — and Virginia were in New York and you 5 the exhibit. 5 were — 6 A. What — what's the date? 6 A. And that Carolyn arranged for a massage. 7 BY MR. SCAROLA: 7 Q. — having a massage. 8 Q. December 11. 8 A. And that my wife arranged for a massage. 9 A. December II. Yes, I sec that. 9 Q. No, I didn't say that at all, sir? 10 Q. Palm Beach International Airport to 10 MR. SCOTT: Well. that's what he's saying 11 Teterboro? 11 that the record reflects. 12 A. Right, yeah. 12 A. The record -- 13 Q. Passengers, Jeffrey Epstein? 13 MR. SCOTT: Don't cut him off. 14 A. Right. 14 A. •• reflects that Carolyn -- Carolyn always 15 Q. GM, a reference to Chislaine — excuse me, 15 wanted me to have massages because she thought it 16 Ghislaine Maxwell, 16 would relax me. I don't like massages particularly, 17 A. Uh-huh. 17 but whin Carolyn arranged massages, almost always we 18 Q. And ET and Virginia, right? 18 had than togahcr at the swim time. We would have 19 A. That's what it says. yes, sir. 19 the same masseuse, sometimes a man, sometimes a 20 Q. And then we see three of the same four 20 woman. conic to the house and give us massages 21 passengers leaving the New York area. 21 together. 22 A. Uh-huh. 22 The idea that my wife would arrange for me 23 Q. To fly to another destination three days 23 to have a massage with an underage girl for sexual 24 later on December 14, correct? 24 purposes is so bizarre and absurd as to defy any 25 A. Yes. 25 kind of credibility, but go on 318 320 1 Q. And let's look at the next page of your 1 BY MR. SCAROLA: 2 wife's diary for December 13, the period of lime 2 Q. Yes. Thank you very much, sir. 3 when the flight log shows Jeffrey Epstein and 3 A. Go on. 4 Virginia in New York — 4 Q. I intend — 5 A. IJh-huh. 5 MR. SCOTT: Since you're both smiling. 6 Q. — at the same time when it would appear 6 them scents to be some hung that I'm missing 7 that you were in New York. And at the bottom of 7 here. I guess I — 8 this calendar, Wednesday. December 13. A.D., 8 MR. SCAROLA. Well, Fm missing the humor 9 massage, right? 9 too. 10 A. 10:00 a.m. it says? What is it? 10 BY MR. SCAROLA: 11 Q. It says 10. 10-A.D. massage? 11 Q. Let's go to Composite Exhibit Number 10. 12 A. Yeah. 12 A. Yeah. 13 Q. Okay. 13 Q. The first page of that composite exhibit 14 Let's go to the next composite. 14 is a photocopy of pages from your personal calendar 15 A. I don't have •• there's another page after 15 in January 2001, correct? 16 that. Oh. the next composite. 16 A. That's right, yes. 17 Q. Yes, sir. 17 Q. Another Court TV appearance on January II, 18 A. Yeah. 18 correct? 19 Q. Composite Number 10. 19 A. January 11. 20 A. Uh-huh. But -- but I just want to be 20 Q. Yes, sir. Thursday, January II, entry In 21 clear. So you're saying Carolyn was with me in 21 the left-hand column, Court TV. 22 Ncw York during that period of time. 22 A. Entry on -- ms. January -- I see it as — 23 Q. No, I'm not saying that at all, sir. I 23 I see it on January 12. I don't see it on 24 suggest that when we lake a close look al the 24 January IL but... 25 calendar, It's going to reveal something other than 25 36 (Pages 317 to 320) www.phippsreporting.com (888)811-3408 EFTA01116754 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 321 BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. I'm sorry, maybe it is January n, but some time between the I Ith and 12th, either on the lint or on the 12th, it's Court TV, correct? A. No, no, no. You're just totally-- Q. It's the 12th - A. -- wrong -- it's the 12th, yes. Q. Okay. Good. Thank you. A. Ifs clearly stated on the I?. yeah. Q. Okay. And then on Friday, the 19th, a week later, another Court TV appearance, correct? A. 19th. Yes. Q. Okay. And on the 26th on Friday, another Court TV appearance, correct? A. That's what it says, yes. These were all — Q. During this period of time — MR. SCOTT: Whoa. Let — let him finish his answer. A. These are all scheduled appearances. I assume that I did thaw These -- these were — when they requested me to to do them. I would do them, yes. BY MR SCAROLA: Q. Okay. And It looks like you're appearing 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 323 MR. SCOTT: Wait a minute. Let him get to it. A. 2 of the composite. Page 2, and what — what day arc we on? MR. SWEDER: Do we even have it? MR. SCOTT: I'm sorry. Excuse me. Do we have copies of this exhibit? MR. SCAROLA: I've given you ccpies of everything -- THE WITNESS: Were these produced in discovery? MR. SCOTT: I assume. A. Okay. What am we up to? What page? BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. Page 2 of Composite Exhibit Number 10. MR. SCOTT: Okay. Now, stop. BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. Tuesday, the 16th. MR. SCOTT: What year arc we talking about now? MR. SCAROLA: 2001, the only year covered in this composite exhibit. A. Yeah, dinner foreign policy Epstein, that was dinner we had at Jeffrey Epstein's house with a group of very distinguished foreign policy experts, 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 -- Q. What is "scheduled appearance" -- 9 MR. SCOTT: Well, wait a minute. Let him 10 finish his questions laic]. 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 them were trials and 15 some clays when there weren't and I would be 16 available because I was living in New York at the 17 lime. 18 BY MR. SCAROLA: 19 Q. On Tuesday. the 161h, 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 nowt? 24 Q. Page 2. Page 2 of the composite, Tuesday, 25 the 16th, Epstein. 1 2 3 4 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 324 Yes- BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. All right, sir. Let's go to the next page. I've just focused on this period of time in January 2001 and on Friday. January 12 — A. So we're going back to Friday, January 12. Yeah. Q. Your wife is in Cambridge, correct? A. No. I don't think so. My wife was living in New York with me at the time. I don't see any record of her being in Cambridge. She was we were living together in New York at NYU downtown. I was a visiting scholar. Having been appointed by John Sexton of NYU to be a visiting scholar, we were there for the year. And my wife was with mc during the year. Our daughter was in school in New York. She went to Little Red Schoolhouse in New York. And we had -- our life was in New York for a period of one year. Q. And on Friday, January 12, you had another massage, right? A. I don't see anything on my record that — Q. Massage, A.D.? A. We must be looking at the different pages. Q. Friday, January 12, page 4 — 37 (Pages 321 to 324) www.phippsreporting.com (888)811-3408 EFTA01116755 325 327 1 A. Who's — 1 A. Uh-huh. 2 Q. — of Composite Exhibit 10. 2 Q. Okay. Or from 3:30 to 4:15, that would be 3 MR. SCOTT: Let me see the page you're 3 a playing time for you in Cambridge; is that 4 talking about so he can — 4 correct? 5 MR. SCAROLA: I've given you the entire 5 A. You'd be asking me to speculate. I can't 6 calendar. 6 speculate based on my wires calendar. It says 7 MR. SCOTT: Come on. Jack. 7 utility bill, Reservoir address. That suggests 8 MR. SCAROLA: I've given you the entire 8 Cambridge. Reservoir is ow house in Cambridge. 9 composite -- 9 Q. So, it would appear that this is another 10 TIE WITNESS: So you're talking about my 10 manage that you got somewhere? 11 wires — 11 A. Butt would like to also say one thing. I 12 MR. SCAROLA: Fourth page — fourth page 12 daft --1 at least wonder were these records 13 of Exhibit 10. You have Exhibit 10. rye given 13 available to your clients at the time they made the 14 a copy of that. 14 falseaccusations against me or arc they 15 MR. SCOTT: I understand it and he has it 15 after-the-fact constructs designed to simply try to 16 front of him and rm trying to get him to the 16 find excuses to justify their false allegations? It 17 right page. Thank you. Please take it down. 17 scents to me the latter is probably the case. 18 BY MR. SCAROLA: 18 Q. And you are going to have an opportunity 19 Q. Fourth page, Composite Exhibit 10. 19 through your counsel to ask those questions. 20 A. Yes. 20 A. And we will. 21 Q. Friday. January 12. 21 Q. And my clients are anxious to be able to 22 A. Okay. mars very simple. We were both 22 answer those questions. 23 in Cambridge and I had a massage in Cambridge. flow 23 A. Not as anxious as I am to hear their 24 do I know that? Because it had basketball. And 24 answers. 25 that's where I play and watch basketball was in 25 Q. Okay. 326 328 1 Cambridge. So probably I was in Cambridge if it 1 MR. SCOTT: Okay. Let's wrap it up. 2 says B ball 3:30.4:15 and says Cambridge with Ella, 2 MR. SCAROLA: Not quite. 3 so I'm sure I was in Cambridge. 3 MR. SCOTT: Yeah, its 12:30. I'm ending 4 Q. All right. So — 4 this. That gives you three and a half hours. 5 A. But I'm -- I'm looking at my wires 5 We take a lunch break and than we have three 6 calendar. I can't tell you and nor can you tell me 6 and a half. 7 where I was at that period of lime. 7 MR. SCAROLA: We don't need three and a 8 Q. So, the basketball entries are references 8 half hours for lunch. 9 to your watching basketball in Cambridge? 9 MR. SCOTT: No. 1 didn't say that, I said 10 A. No. They could be playing basketball. I 10 we take an hour break and then we have three 11 played basketball in those days -- 11 and a half hours with your client, just like... 12 Q. Watching or playing basketball? 12 MR. SCAROLA: If -- if that's what you 13 MR. SCOTT: Let him finish his answer, 13 want to do -- 14 please. 14 MR. SCOTT: That's the fair thing to do 15 A. I either watched basketball or played 15 because that's why we're dividing it equally 16 basketball, yeah. I did not go to basketball games 16 and I suggested that -- 17 in New York. to my recollection, unless the Celtics 17 MR. SCAROLA: I will state -- I will state 18 were in New York and maybe we can check — 18 for the record that Exhibits 2.3 and 4 -- 19 MR. SCOTT: You've get about five minutes, 19 excuse me, Exhibits 9, 10, I I and 12. 20 Counsel. 20 composite exhibits, directly conflict with the 21 BY MR. SCAROLA: 21 witness's assertion -- 22 Q. The Celtics didn't play from 4:15 to 5:00, 22 MR. SCOTT: This is all a speech on your 23 did they? 23 part. 24 A. No, but I did. 24 MR. SCAROLA: It is a speech. 25 Q. You did? 25 MR. SCOTT: It is a speech and -- 38 (Pages 325 to 328) www.phippsreporting.com (888)811-3408 EFTA01116756 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 329 MR. SCAROLA: I'm giving you notice as to what you can do to do your homework. Okay? They directly conflict with the witness's assertion that the flight logs exonerate him. In fact -- MR. SCOTT: Wait a minute. MR. SCAROLA: -- the fli hi lo the flight logs corroborat assertions. MR. SCOTT: And I thank you very much for that explanation and we look forward to resuming this at the appropriate time and responding to that. THE WITNESS: And that is a false statement. MR. SCOTT: Thank you. VIDEOGRAPHER: Going off the record. The time is approximately 12:26 p.m. (The proceedings ADJOURNED at 12:26 p.m.) 331 CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF BROWARD I, KIMBERLY FONTALVO, Registered Professional Reporter, do hereby cern fy that I was authorized to and did stenographically report the foregoing videotape deposition of ALAN M. DERSIIOWITZ; 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 la relative or employee of any of the parties' attorneys or counsel connected with the action, nor am 1 financially interested in the action. Dated this 16th day of October, 2015. KIMBERLY FONTALVO, RPR, FPR. CLR 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 libliday of October. 2015. Signed this 16th clay of October, 2015. S KIMBERLY FONTALVO, RPR, FPR, CLR Notary Public, State of Florida My Commission Na EE 161994 Expires: 2701/16 October 16.2015 COLE. SCOTT& KISSANE. P.A. Dorkland Centre11- Suite140o 9150 South Dodeland Boulevard Miami. Florida 33156 BY: THOMAS EMERSON SCOTT. JR. ESQ. Re: Edwards v. Denhovitz 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 octane the Errata Sheet. which can be found at the bock of the transcript. and have it resumed to us for disinlyution to all patties. 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_ Wynn wish to waive your signature now, please sign your name in the blank at the bottom of Ibis laser and return to the address listed below. Very nuly )cuts. KIMBERLY FONTALVO. RPR. FPR. CLR Phipps Reporting. Inc. 1615 Foshan Place. Suite 500 West Palm Beach. Florida 33401 I do hereby WaiVe my signature. ALAN M. DERSHOW1TZ 332 39 (Pages 329 to 332) www.phippsreporting.com (888)811-3408 EFTA01116757 333 ERRATA SHEET DO NOT WRITE ON TRANSCRIPT- ENTER CHANGES HERE In Re: EDWARDS V. DERSHOWITZ AIAN M. DERSHOWITZ October 16.2015 PAGE LINE CHANGE REASON Under potables orpetjuty. It:Rehm Art I have read the feregomg doctarcnt and that the that axed m ii ac true. Date ALAN M. DERSIIOWIT2 40 (Page 333) www.phippsreporting.com (888)811-3408 EFTA01116758 Exhibit 3 EFTA01116759 3 ) 1 APPEARANCES CONTINUED 2 Also on behalf of the Defendant: 1 IN THE CROAT COURT OF IHE SEVENTEENTH 2 JUIRWIFCUI7 IN MD FCR COADY. FLORIDA 3 SWEDER 8 ROSS, LIP BY: KENNETH A. SWEDER, ESQUIRE 4 131 Oliver Street 3 CASE /83. CARE 15.000072 Boston, 14•ssechusetts 02110 4 6 Fax 617.646.4466 Fax: 617.646.4470 5 BRADLEY J. EDWARDS and PAIL G. Catcall, 6 E-mall: ksweder•sweder•ross.com 6 7 Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants. 7 On behalf of the Witness: vs. 8 8 UTAH ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE, P.A. 8 BY: TONI ). TONES, ASSISTANT 9 ALAN N. DERSEICIAITZ. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Litigation Division 10 10 160 East 300 South Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff. Heber w ells Building • 6th Floor 11 F 11 Salt Lake City, Utah 84114 12 Tel: 801.366.0100 12 Fax: 801.366.0101 13 E•m all: JoniJoneS• utah.gov 14 VICEOTAPED DEPOSITION CF 13 15 PAUL G. MRCP I 14 Telephonically on behalf of Jeffrey Epstein: 18 TAMS CH BEHALF OF DE 0FFEIDOM 16 DARREN K. !NOTICE, PLLC BY: DARREN K. INDYKE, ESQUIRE 17 VOLU1E I PAGES 1 to 151. 16 575 Lexington Avenue 18 4th Floor 17 New York, New York 10022 19 Tel: 212.971.1314 20 Friday, October 16. 2015 18 21 1:33 p.m. • 0:31 p.m. 19 Also Present: 22 20 DON SAVOY, Videographer 110 Southeast 6th Street BRADLEY J. EDWARDS 23 110 Tower - Suite 1650 Fort laUderdale, Florida 33301 21 ALAN M. DERSHOWIT2 24 CAROLYN COHEN 22 25 Theresa Tcmaselli, FM 23 ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS 24 26 (954) 331-4400 ESQUIRE DEPOSITOR SOLUTIONS (954) 331.4400 2 4 1 APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL 1 INDEX OF EXAMINATION 2 2 WITNESS PAGE On behalf of the Plaintiffs: 3 3 PAUL G. CASSELL SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA 4 BARNHART & SHIPLEY, P.A. BY: JOHN SCAROLA, ESQUIRE 4 DIRECT EXAMINATION 6 6 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard BY MR. SIMPSON West Palm Beach, Florida 33409 6 6 Tel: 561.686.6300 Fax: 561.383.9541 6 7 E-mail: m e eel searcylaw •COIn INDEX TO EXHIBITS 7 43 On behalf of 8 EXHIBIT DESCR IPTION PAGE 9 B 0 I . LLP 9 10 BY: SIGftID STONE NCCAW LEY, ESQUIRE 401 East Las Olas Boulevard Cassell 1.1). Exhibit No. 1 - Plaintiff's 21 11 Suite 1200 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 10 Response to Notion for Limited Intervention by Alan H. Dershowitz 12 Tel: 954.356.0011 11 Fax: 954.356.0022 Cassell I.D. Exhibit No. 2 - Jane Doe 22 13 E•m ail: sm ccaw ley° bsfllp.com 12 Number 3 and lane Doe Number Cs Motion Pursuant to Rule 21 for Joinder in Action 14 13 On behalf of the Defendant: Cassell 1.0. Exhibit No. 3 - one -page 106 16 14 document produced by the witness WILEY REIN LIP 16 BY: RICHARD A. SIMPSON, ESQUIRE 15 AND: NICOLE A. RICHARDSON. ESQUIRE 17 1776 K Street Northwest Washington, DC 20006 16 16 Tel: 202.719.7000 19 Fax: 202.719.7049 e-mail: rsim pion° w ileyrein.com 17 18 20 Also on behalf of the Defendant: 19 21 COLE. SCOTT a KISSA NE, P.A. 20 (Original Exhibits have been attached to the 22 BY: THOMAS EMERSON SCOTT, JR., ESQUIRE original transcript.) 23 9150 South Dadeland Boulevard fl atland Centre II • Suite 1400 21 22 Miami, florida 33156 U Tel: 305.350.5329 23 Fax: 305.373.2294 24 26 E•mall: thoMa4SCOROCsklegal.com 26 ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954)331-4400 (954)331.4400 1 of 38 sheets Page 1 to 0 Of 151 10/20/2015 01:07:28 PM EFTA01116760 61 63 of ins 1 Q. I would like to know why you alleged " and 011235 1 was your basis for this? 01.1067 2 other minors " given what you have said about your ei on 2 A. All right So the Initial basis for it vinyl 3 knowledge of the factual basis, so to speak, for that o1 :o00 3 was — 01 nos 4 allegation. ociwo 4 MR. SCAROLA: First of all, let me object on no. 5 A. Okay. There are going to be — I ' m going to oi out 5 because Professor Cassell is not here as an o1 „a 6 end up giving you nine reasons, each of which is 011304 6 expert witness and hypotheticals are oil' n 7 complicated, so I just want to — if -- if - I don ' t 01.1301 7 inappropriate. You ' re calling for speculation on 00 17 Is 8 want to be accused of -- of fi libustering or anything. vi no. 8 his part. I ' m not going to instruct him not to oi 1113 9 I just want you to know that you have asked a broad 011310 9 answer, but it is an Improper question. 0111 IA 10 question that ' s going to require a broad and extended 011114 10 MR. SIMPSON: I disagree, but you can answer 011120 11 answer. It — it -- 010,4 11 the question. onus 12 O. Answer the question. 01131.1 12 THE WITNESS: Right. So the -- the factual 011,23 13 A. Okay. Then I ' m going to to a -- I have es 13 n 13 basis would — we are setting aside 011177 14 a — well, actually, I don ' t 011131 14 attorney/client communications, right? 011121 15 Q. Let me ask you this: Before you refer to unit 15 BY MR. SIMPSON: 01.1130 16 something -- 01 on 16 O. I'm asking: What would you tell the judge? *inn 17 A. Yeah. u 42.1 17 A. Right So that — I -- I -- that ' s 011130 18 Q. -- please give me your best recollection of el lin 18 speculative to -- I don ' t think I can give a fair answer 0,1134 19 what the basis was, the factual basis that you had in oi 17 30 19 at this point because that would have Involved going 0 nu 20 mind. If the court said to you -- let me put it this 011112 20 back to my client and — and carving out what kinds oi iiie 21 way. If you went to court and Judge Marra said, Of 0 36 21 of things we were going to present to Judge Marra In in 110 22 Professor Cassell, what ' s your factual basis for this oi 0 w 22 light of the posture of the case at that point. co Ili, 23 allegation? Tell me. What would you say? 01 00 23 So it ' s a speculative question. I would 011140 24 A. Right. 011346 24 have -- let me just — without going Into any 0111414 25 MS. McCAWLEY: Wait. Outside the context of 01 044 25 attorney/client privileged communications, I would have ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331.4400 (954) 331-4400 62 64 en ,so so 1 anything that ' s been communicated to you. 011331 1 provided an ample factual basis for those allegations. oi nu 2 MR. SCAROLA: Excuse me. You have asked two 0 nn 2 MR. SIMPSON: I move to strike as how 3 different questions now, and I need to understand oi on 3 nonresponsive. allot 4 which question you are asking. vi nos 4 BY MR. SIMPSON: oi ilia 5 The question that you posed before just now 0113111 5 Q. Let me ask it this way: We have talked 01,102 6 was: what was the reason for your including no: 6 about -- somewhat about the basis for this allegation in use 7 those allegations in this pleading? 011403 7 about other minors. Putting aside information as to 011201 8 Now you have asked: What is the factual u 1400 8 which you 're claiming privilege, tell me what you knew nate 9 basis? And that ' s going back to questions that MHO 9 as of December 30th, 2014, that formed the factual basis 011214 10 we have already covered, and we have, I think, 011420 10 for your -- for that allegation about other minors. 011717 11 exhausted the ability to respond to that question °tun 11 MR. SCAROLA: And I 'll instruct you not to 01 1720 12 outside of privileged information. moos 12 answer that question for the same reason, that oi on 13 Do you want to go back to the question about: 011427 13 when the same question was asked earlier, I 011224 14 What was your reason for inducing those 011421 14 instructed you not to answer. 011170 15 allegations? 011431 15 MR. SIMPSON: I 'm -- I 'm -- maybe we are not oi nos 16 MR. SIMPSON: Iii ask the question a 01,433 16 being clear, Jack. I ' m asking Nm to put es we 17 different way. 011431 17 aside -- I mean, certainly, he -- he filed a 011211 18 MR. SCAROLA: Thank you. coup 18 pleating. You' ve asserted privilege as to 01,213 19 By MR. SIMPSON: 011440 19 certain aspects. I'm simply asking him, putting 0„ 213 20 Q. Mr. Cassell, Fm going to ask you: If you 're 0,1443 20 aside whatever you 're claiming privilege for, oi nc 21 in court and Judge Marra said to you, counsel, what is oi Hs 21 right, so I ' m not -- I ' m not asking you right now 011242 22 the factual basis for your allegation that Professor 01144/ 22 to tell me anything you 're claiming as 011241 23 Dershowitz abused other minors, what would you say? And 011441 23 privileged. 011251 24 if you wouldn ' t say something because it was privileged, 01141. 24 BY MR. SIMPSON: 011212 25 then don ' t indude it. What would you tell the judge 011410 25 Q. Tell me whatever Is not privileged that ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 (954) 331-4400 10/20/2015 01:07:26 PM Page 61 to 64 of 151 16 of 38 sheets EFTA01116761 65 01 14:61 1 supports that allegation. 01 1446 2 A. Okay. The privileged information, obviously, 01 1414 3 you're asking me not to reveal at this point. assns 4 Q. I'm asking you -- I'm asking you to tell me 01. 144 5 the nonprivileged information. And I'm not agreeing el Wm 6 with your privilege assertion -- wise( 7 A. Sure. 01:1507 8 Q. but for purposes of this question - 01:1107 9 A. For purposes of this question. 011407 10 Q. -- I'm accepting it. isw 11 A. All right. 01:1606 12 Q. Putbng aside what you claim is privileged, I oi Imo 13 want to know everything that's the factual basis for emir 14 including the allegation about other minors. Mill. 15 A. Okay. Privileged information which I'm not 0111 17 16 disclosing in any way would have interacted with a vast ensss 17 body of other information. n 1622 18 The vast body of other information would have 01:1624 19 started with an 89-page police report from the Palm faun 20 Beach Police Department that showed for about a nue 21 six-month period in 2005, there was sexual abuse of m ism 22 minor girls going on on a daily basis, In — whenever stun 23 Jeffrey Epstein was in his Palm Beach mansion. 01:15.4. 24 And on some cases, it was going on not once, 0115.6 25 not twice, but three times during the day. That -- let ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 67 01 16 52 1 began, you know, I guess what we would call ot ma 2 knock-and-talks, knocking on doors to try to get to some oiler 3 of these girls, and they would get to the girls, and 16/11 4 many of them initially were — were afraid to explain ot i, 5 what had happened. el ore 6 But as they — as they continued talking to 011744 7 them, the girls began to explain that what was happening nun 8 was, they were going over to Epstein's house under the seas u 9 guise of giving a massage, and when they got there, the on2u 10 massage was, in fact, sexual activity. .11 11 And for many of the girls, I think, as I say 01022 12 around 23, 24, something along those lines, they were nun 13 underage. They were under the age of consent in 011701 14 Florida. Os 1.211 15 And so each and every one of those events was or um 16 a crime being perpetrated and let's be clear, not n oar 17 just being perpetrated by Epstein, but by other people 01 ITN 18 who were involved there at the mansion. 01 ITN 19 And so what the -- the Palm Beach Police el 1740 20 Department was putting together was that this mansion in n -1241 21 Florida was the nest of sexual abuse of young girls here 01 1744 22 in Florida that Involved, literally, in the -- in this leas 23 period of time, more than a hundred events that they es Inv 24 were able to document of sexual abuse. al use 25 And when you put that together with the ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 01 15 51 1 0115 SI 2 0135 45 01'1556 01 u551 011617 01 160S 01 16 0/ 01:1601 Of 16 12 10 Of nisi 11 Ones/ 12 01 56 is) 13 otion 14 wins 15 n1026 16 011631 17 011656 18 nun 19 sten 20 01 w.+ 21 01 w.. 22 01 144/ 23 01 16 47 24 et nee 25 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 86 me just be clear. I mean, I -- I referred to the 89-page police report. I have offered to put it into the record if -- if it would speed things up, but let's just talk about some of the things that are in that 89-page police report. This was a -- a very Intensive investigation that the Palm Beach Police Department put together. They did, for example, what are called trash covers; that is when trash came out of the -- of the mansion of Epstein, the police would intercept the trash and then they would go through the trash and look for incriminating information. And what they began to discover was memo Pads -- and I say "memo pads,- let's be clear, pad after pad after pad, or I guess I should say, sheet after sheet after sheet that had the name of a girl, and then there was a notation of something to the effect of a massage. And so the Palm Beach Police Department began tracking down, well, wait a minute, these -- these are girls giving massages and they don't seem to have any specialized training in massages; they don't seem to be masseuses in any sense of the term; what's going on here? And so the Palm Beach Police Department ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 01 1001 1 slim 2 m a 3 onto, 4 en ley 5 mutt, 6 onuw 7 et is 8 011021 9 own 10 cri ma 11 organ 12 of its 13 .its 14 *Iwo 15 011646 16 01114$ 17 mune 18 01110 19 01:164 20 al MS 21 el on 22 al no 23 01 HOY 24 01'11112 25 68 pattern or practice that was being revealed there, there were hundreds of acts of sexual abuse going on In the mansion. But then what becomes -- and this is where I indicated that, you know, the answer would continue on. The — the problem was that the evidence was starting to show that this was a much broader series of events. For example, there were flight logs showing that Mr. Epstein was then flying with underaged girls, and those flight logs, you know, as -- as the flight logs began to develop, for example, we have seen, I k wi day or two here, one underage girl w who is on the flight, you know, with Epstein, and with Maxwell, and those sorts of things. So you start to look at the flight logs and you see what's going on is not just events that are occurring in Florida, but it's occurring on a multi-state basis, which now starts to make it a federal crime. For example, we are seeing evidence that -- let's just talk abo she's central to this ca We are seein flown from Florida to New Yor w ere s e s in c utches of Jeffrey Epstein who is sexually abusing her, you know, many times a week. And not just Jeffrey Epstein, but ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 17 of 38 sheets Page 65 to 68 of 151 10/20/2015 01:07:78 PM EFTA01116762 69 01 ten 1 other powerful persons. For example, Ghislaine Maxwell anis 2 is there with him on all of these flights and apparently e,112, 3 being involved in the abuse. • nr.. 4 Indeed -- and so you -- you have — you es nn 5 have that. You also start to see on the flight logs, 01 no 6 what to my mind are some very sinister things, 01 1104 7 suggesting that the pattern is not just confined to sort 011•10 8 of, you know, the girls that are there In Florida, but as an 9 It — it Is extending more broadly. 011141 10 Like one of the — to my mind, sinister and na 11 scary things on the flight logs is, we see, you know, sine 12 ,o we know has been sexually abused, in nu 13 and we see Jeffrey Epstein, and then we see on the si nu 14 flight logs one female. nu 15 That's kind of an odd notation for a flight .nn. 16 log because, you know, typically, I understand the ante 17 flight logs, the purpose is, well, if something happens 012001 18 with the flight, or there's some question about who was mans 19 on it, you want to know who -- who the person was who lone 20 was on the flight. 012000 21 So, to my mind, when I started to see on sin to 22 these flight logs entries like one female, I viewed that 00016 23 as a potential device for obscuring the fact that there anon 24 was interstate trafficking of underage girls for 1112011 25 purposes of sexual activity. Serious federal offenses. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331.4400 70 011022 1 But then that evidence extended, you know, 012020 2 more broadly than that. The evidence also started to 011021 3 show, again, if we talk just abo 011011 4 the -- that underage girls such were costa 5 being flown Internationally fro , rboro 0120 01 6 in Now York to -- to locations, just to pick one, you an 7 know, for example, In London, where again sexual abuse 01100S 8 was occurring. O1101/ 9 And so you started to put together this 012001 10 pattern of criminality that was started in this -- you sass, 11 know, I don't know what the right word is here. I don't 01:2001 12 want to -- I don't want to -- you know, you've heard slain 13 discussions of hyperbole and things like that, but we onto, 14 have got this nest of — of — and I won't say snakes, 012101 15 but we have this nest of criminals in Florida, but it -- m 21 07 16 it seems to be spreading to Epstein's mansion in New eta,. 17 York; it seems to be spreading to Ghislaine Maxwell's ay.. 18 flat in London, and -- and -- and it goes on. a 21.7 19 So those are the kinds of things that would or 21 TO 20 have formed the -- the -- the basis, particularly when 0121n 21 you -- when you start to add in this fact: What the • n 22 Palm — going back now to Florida with the Palm Beach 011111 23 Police Department. What the Palm Beach Police man 24 Department has — had discovered was not a one-off kind 0111/3 25 of event, you know, on one particular day, one ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 71 011111 1 particular girl had been sexually abused. ern. 2 What the Palm Beach Police Department had o:no 3 discovered was brazen, notorious, repetitive activity 0121411 4 sometimes occurring as often as three times in a er210 5 particular day. And so that led me to believe that the oinst 6 sexual activity that was going on in Florida was such 012114 7 that someone who was a regular house guest there would 012111 8 have immediately come to the conclusion that, well, eine 9 look, gee, there are these underage girls coming in here ones 10 and they -- they seem to be -- you know, they don't seem mass 11 to be here to be doing, you know, business activities; or as 12 they -- they might be here doing other kinds of nil 13 activities. So those would be the kinds of things that arra 14 would -- would have formed the factual basis. or no 15 There are other things as well, but I'm sure 01 no 16 you want to ask other questions in addition to that. So 012222 17 I'll stop there, but those — that's — I think gives an 24 18 you a small flavor of the kind of evidence that, you 01 nn 19 know, was form — undergirding the allegations that were Ginn 20 being presented here. 01 an 21 Q. It sounds like you quite passionately believe 01 2211 22 that there was strong evidence that Mr. Epstein had w no 23 engaged in sexual misconduct; is that right? wan 24 A. I think "strong' understates it. oleo 25 Q. In the course of that long answer, y0u didn't ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 012244 oust 2 nn 3 0101.. 4 si nu 5 mention Professor Dershowitz's name once. A. I said flight logs. And let's talk about flight logs. Q. Let me back up. You didn't answer his name -- mention his name once; is that -- is that your wow 6 recollection as well? 01 ZS CO 7 A. That's correct. We were talking about a 012302 8 factual basis, and I'll be glad -- I told you that there ernes 9 were other things if you want, factual basis for — for o, ow 10 Mr. Dershowitz. I'll be glad to add that in. Let me -- es n io 11 let's — let me — let me -- I would like to supplement ens,, 12 my answer then if I could. 012112 13 Q. Do you want to look at a document? man 14 A. Yes. anis 15 Q. Let me first -- have we exhausted your woe 16 recollection without documents of all the evidence that 011121 17 you would refer to to support the allegation that 012111 18 Professor Dershowitz abused other minors? OS n1119 A. No. woo 20 MR. SCAROLA: And let me say that you have a 011124 21 right to refer to whatever documents you choose Dina 22 to refer to, to be sure that you give a complete sins 23 response to the question that has been asked, as long as you understand that whatever you refer to 011340 25 is going to be available to the other side, and ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 72 012111 24 10/20/2015 01:07:28 PM Page 69 to 72 of 151 18 of 38 sheets EFTA01116763 012443 10 01240 11 012443 12 017444 13 0 24 14 14 °12411 15 elute 16 01 003 17 01.23 12 18 stun 19 in :sir 20 012422 21 *Its,. 22 012624 23 04426 32 24 ma>. 25 012343 1 012144 2 012347 3 012247 4 01230 5 01 23 4/ 6 01230 7 017321 8 inns, 9 017361 10 0/7347 11 0/2112 12 01230 13 0/ 23 •-•. 14 072117 15 412110 16 ol no, 17 olio) 18 012401 19 02240 20 024 0$ 21 OS 07 22 0,2407 23 0124 0 24 012403 25 we would be happy to make It available to you. MR. SIMPSON: And -- and I'll give you an opportunity to look at that -- THE WITNESS: Sure -- BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. -- but I'm entitled to ask first about your recollection. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. 73 Okay. Based on your recollection — Right. -. I want to know all the evidence -- Right you were relying on here. So what — what I'm going to do is, I'm going to make a list here on my -- on my notepad of all the things, and then I'm going to compare that with notes I have here. There may be a couple things that I don't cover. Q. As long as your counsel is okay with that. A. Yeah. Q. You understand you'll have to give that to me7 A. Yeah. give you the notes — Q. All right. A. -- and then I will compare with what I've got ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331.4400 75 oinu 1 Mr. Epstein saying that she had been trafficked, °inn 2 sexually trafficked, you know, not just abused by 010 44 3 Mr. Epstein, but now being forcibly sent to, you know, 471 2446 4 other people to abuse. 01 x43 5 And In the categories of people that were 14 010157 6 sexually abusing her were academicians, and I knew that °Inas 7 Mr. Dershowitz fell within that category of -- of being cram 8 an academician. The — that complaint also Indicated 02304 9 that there I flight logs that would show that ono. 10 d been sexually abused in these etas* 11 And that started to indicate to me 0127+o 12 that there might be what the la mon 0x10 13 scheme or plan. And that, just as *inn 14 being trafficked to these powe Qin?, 15 places, there might well be other girls. 012024. 16 And so I have mentioned a flight log, and let or as n 17 you — you wanted to talk about Mr. Dershowitz. On 01x33 18 on December 30th, 2009, I was aware that there was a or sat 19 flight log showing Mr. Dershowitz flying with Tatiana, size., 20 who as far as I can tell was not a business person, was 01044 21 not providing financial advice or something else. man 22 I understood that Mr. Epstein was a inn u 23 billionaire who was heavily involved in financial 441x.7 24 issues. I knew that Tatiana was on a plane with 01x0 25 Mr. Dershowitz, and then there was also, if I recall ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 74 4121n 1 there. So I mentioned the Palm Beach Police Department a 24 14 2 report. 23.x.1 3 The next thing that I want to mention is the on. Is 4 Jane Doe 102 complaint. In August of 2009, Bob 012427 5 losefsberg -- who is, from what / understood, a very 012432 6 well-regarded lawyer here in Florida; in fact, a lawyer 01:431 7 that was selected by the United States Government to 01x30 8 represent a number of the --of the girls that had been 0124 40 9 sexually abused by Jeffrey Epstein. He was he was part of the procedure that was including the non prosecution agreement behalf that Flori ,a he filed a complaint on t complaint indicated n sexually abused in in -- in other places, as I recall. The thing that -- that I pa was that Mr. )osefsberg had said as abused by -- and he gave some ca egor es o peop e. He mentioned, I think, business people. He mentioned royalty, and he mentioned academicians. And so to tie into your question, I knew that Professor Dershowitz was an academician. And so what I was seeing now was, that according to a very, very respected attorney here in Florida, he had found to be credible, and had filed a lawsuit ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 76 oi nru 1 correctly, working from memory as -- as you were O1270 2 wondering about, there was a notation that Orr... 3 Mr. Dershowitz was on a plane with one female. one 4 And so I was — when I looked at that, I'm omit 5 seeing Mr. Dershowitz on a -- on a flight with a woman rune 6 who doesn't seem to be there for, frankly anything other en is 7 than sexual purposes or something along those lines with a,2721 8 Mr. Epstein, with Mr. Epstein, who Is a sex trafficker, at 2721 9 and with one female which seemed to me to be a potential 01 0 30 10 entry for disguising international sex trafficking. So that was of concern. I then began to look at, well, I wonder, how would I find out if Mr. Dershowitz had been abusing other girls/ Let's see. I knew the had been forced to — to — to -- to thing.. MS. lecCAWLEY: you're Okay as long as You're -- if you're revealing something that's in an affidavit -- THE WITNESS: That's right. MS. McC.AWLEY: -- that she submitted, you're 012733 11 012734 12 012723 13 012734 14 012142 15 • 1741 16 012754 17 01 2241 18 012744 19 01771,1 20 o1»34 21 0$2,“ 22 212 123 23 inn os 24 01210 25 fine. THE WITNESS: Right. So -- so what... Let's see. What did I want, at this point -- ESQUIRE DEPOSITION sousnoNs (954) 331-4400 19 of 38 sheets Page 73 to 76 of 151 10/20/2015 01:07:28 PM EFTA01116764 77 79 012105 1 BY MR. SIMPSON: 012114? 1 MS. McCAWLEY: Yeah. si :ea 2 Q. Do you want the question back? MOO 2 MR. SCAROLA: -- who keeps jumping up and on* 3 A. No. I'm just trying to remember what I was 012010 3 down and distracting everybody in the room? 012.12 4 thinking about with -- with regard to -- 012•12 4 MS. McCAWLEY: And there was also profanity 0211s 5 MR. SCAROLA: Do you need the response read •,nu 5 used earlier. I mean, we just have to settle mnir 6 back up to the point -- •, no 6 down on this side, and take a deep breath, and 01211. 7 THE WITNESS: Yeah, if you would do that, a me 7 let him answer his questions. 012420 8 yeah. I just -- Maw 8 MR. SIMPSON: Look, I mean, the same thing a74.20 9 MR. SCAROLA: -- about privilege arose. awn 9 was happening on the other side. 012130 10 THE WITNESS: Yeah. Let's just see what that 01300 10 MR. SCAROLA: No, sir. auto 11 one -- 013000 11 MS. McCAWLEY: There was no profanity on this 042121 12 MR. SCAROLA: Just read the last couple of ow® 12 side of the table. 012102 13 sentences back, or the last two sentences. mato 13 MR. SCAROLA: No, no, no. There was never 012.31 14 THE WITNESS: Oh, I'm sorry. Now I remember a ea 14 anyone who jumped to their feet at any time a NM 15 exactly what I was thinking. a via 15 during the course of the last two days. The only 012132 16 How would we go find out whether Mr. Epstein a mg 16 person who keeps jumping up is Alan Dershowitz. 0.2/35 17 e.2/,. 18 was lending women, or in this case, underage girls, to Mr. Dershowitz for sexual purposes? 013013 17 0130 SI 18 Have him pass you a note quietly, if you would, please. 0:2/41 19 Well, the first thing I want to do was ask -- you 013011 19 MR. SIMPSON: I will disagree with your 01214$ 20 know, I'd -- I'd go ask Jeffrey Epstein. cilia. 20 characterization, but let me say the 012147 21 And so what I discovered when I started to 013020 21 argumentation -- alma 22 look at the transcripts, there were a number of 013021 22 MR. SCAROLA: Excuse me. Are you -- are you 012452 23 transcripts where Mr. Epstein was asked about x3027 23 making the representation -- a MS 24 Alan Dershowitz. And rather than say, well, no, 013027 24 MR. SIMPSON: No, I'm not. 0.200 25 he wasn't involved in any of these illegal 013023 25 MR. SCAROLA: -- that somebody on this side ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 (954) 331-4400 78 80 ei a ® 1 activities, Jeffrey Epstein took the Fifth as the in was 1 of the room jumped up? 012903 2 phrase, you know, to be more precise. He 013023 2 MR. SIMPSON: No, no, no, I'm not. 01 Oa 3 exercised his right against compelled 0, 3036 3 MR. SCAROLA: Okay. Thank YOU. .ma 4 self-incrimination and refused to answer the 013036 4 MR. SIMPSON: I'm not. an ma 5 mail 6 question, which since these were civil cases, Indicated to me, since he was being represented 01302? 5 a an 6 MR. SCAROLA: And I appreciate that. MR. SIMPSON: And I - 0/ POO 7 by very experienced legal counsel, that there was oi ma 7 MR. SCAROLA: And you do acknowledge that (1/21 MI 8 more than an insignificant risk of incriminating 013610 8 Mr. Dershowitz has repeatedly been jumping up in a a a 9 himself if he answered that. 'Inn 9 the middle of testimony, correct? 01.2120 10 And so Jeffrey Epstein now had taken the 01 VIC 10 MR. SIMPSON: That's -- he just got up and earl 11 Fifth. And one of the things that I was aware of 0131431 11 came over to me. That's the only time I'm aware 0, 2124 12 ei 2ow 13 having been involved in, you know, civil litigation and criminal litigation in other an 12 013011 13 of, because I'm -- Em looking at the witness, but he did Just do that, and I will pass notes. an 14 cases, was that once somebody refuses to answer a 413044 14 We won't get up. 0405 33 15 question like, you know: Do you know 013046 15 MR. SCAROLA: Okay. Well, I will tell you -- 01213S 16 cii am 17 Mr. Dershowitz? And they take the Fifth on that, that you're then entitled to draw what's called s$3045 16 0130/7 17 MR. SIMPSON: I'm not going to take time from this. 012/ 40 18 an adverse inference. You can -- you can infer 01300 18 MR. SCAROLA: I will -- I will, for the 012342 19 that, well, if they answered that question, they con 19 record, as an officer of the court, represent 01 21,14 20 would have -- oivao 20 that there have been multiple times during the 0 20 14 21 MR. SCAROLA: Excuse me. a asi 21 course of Professor Cassell's deposition when 012/44 22 MS. McCAWLEY: Yeah, I want to make an soars 22 Alan Dershowitz has jumped up in the middle of 012114 23 objection here -- 013101 23 the testimony and excitedly whispered in your strw. 24 MR. SCAROLA: Pardon me. Could you please 013121 24 ear. 012147 25 try to control your client -- 013107 25 You may not have realized it because you were ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 (954) 331-4400 10/20/2015 01:07:28 PM Page 77 to 80 of 151 20 of 38 sheets EFTA01116765 0131 C0 i on,“, 2 013113 3 a n • 4 81 focusing on the witness, but everybody on this side of the room has been distracted by his unprofessional conduct. MR. SIMPSON: I'm not going to argue with an» 1 m-an 2 017064 3 011317 4 83 review, in which he took the Fifth when asked questions about Dershowitz. So, at that point, in trying to figure out, you know, whether Mr. Dershowitz was involved in Ot 3110 5 you. And I -- 013120 5 sexually abusing, not onl in 03114 6 MR. SCAROLA: Thank you. OT Us 6 other girls, then you go d I, next *nu, . 7 MR. SIMPSON: -- I disagree with that Our 7 layer of the criminal conspiracy. 013120 8 characterization. There is another attorney fin 8 Epstein is at the top, so you go to the next CI 3172 9 sitting between us. We will pass notes. a a» 9 layer. These are, you know, basically the -- the women ail» 10 MR. SCAROLA: Thank you. a »13 10 who, from what I could gather, were — were older than Ot111. 11 MR. SIMPSON: And we -- and I believe, a a* 11 the ago that Epstein wanted to sexually abuse. I think .313170 12 Ms. McCawley, were you instructing not to answer a a 0 12 these were 22 and 23-year-old girls, so they had, you 013130 13 or what was happening? What did you -- what were ol um 13 know, essentially aged out of being his sexual abuse 01.31 34 14 you raising? a no 14 victims, but they continued to — what they would do is Ot 3134 15 MS. McCAWLEY: No. There was a lot of ens 15 collect girls for him under the age of 18, that I guess *tales 16 yelling going on here, so I was trying to make 013333 16 was in his target range. 03137 17 sure that everybody was quiet -- areas 17 And so what — so the next person I 18 MR. SIMPSON: All right. a am 18 nwn t information from wa 19 20 MS. McCAWLEY: -- so that the client could answer. oi mo. 19 01 Mel 20 on a lot of these flight logs „ irls that -- or women and with 21 MR. SIMPSON: All right. Let me back up. 013407 21 Epstein and others, and so I wanted to talk t 22 BY MR. SIMPSON: 013407 22 era,., 23 Q. Professor Cassell, I think you were in the on» 23 But what I discovered there was that, when 01'041 24 middle of an answer? 034u 24 s asked about Alan Dershowitz, she took 0330 25 A. I was. Yes, If I could conclude -- a mi, 25 the Fifth, and there was — she wasn't the only one. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 82 84 a 3, 0 1 MR. SIMPSON: All right. Could the court 013421 1 There was Miss Mucinska, who also took the Fifth when 013144 2 reporter read me the last two lines of your a ins 2 asked questions about Alan Dershowitz. 013146 3 answer? 034 34,7 3 And then there wa Iss 013145 4 THE WITNESS: Okay. man 4 who also took the Fifth. Sow we -- what nein 5 (Thereupon, a portion of the record was read Ginn 5 this point was Jeffrey Epstein's international sex on,* 6 by the reporter.) el um 6 trafficking organization. I had the next echelon, and 01040 7 BY MR. SIMPSON: 013.10 7 both the top kingpin of the sex trafficking max 8 Q. Okay. Can you pick up then? man 8 organization, and the next echelon had taken the Fifth, mar 9 A. Sure. I'll pick up — pick up the — 0.0463 9 had refused to answer questions about Alan Dershowitz. 01370 10 Q. Okay. 013440 10 And so, at — at that point, I was drawing an 01373, 11 A. So I was beginning to draw an adverse 0 mil 11 adverse inference, not just from one person, but from an ii 12 inference when Jeffrey Epstein, who is at the heart of 0 340 12 four persons, and that adverse inference was being a 12 34 13 the sexual abuse of, not only [REDACTED], but 01.310 13 strengthened by the surrounding circumstances, some of 013230 14 dozens and dozens and dozens of -- of girls literally ,in.. 14 which we have already talked about. a1.040 15 scattered across the globe, takes the Fifth, refuses to et MO 15 One of the things that -- that really mac 16 answer the question, off the top of my head, I can't 013302 16 bolstered the adverse inference that I was drawing in ono 17 recall exactly, but something along lines of: Do you 0 )003 17 this case was that I've mentioned those three girls, sin.. 18 know Alan Dershowitz? And he says, I take the Fifth. a, 330 18 They were all covered 019 to 19 That sort of, frankly, startled me, that — that this 013312 19 by a nonprosecution agreement. And the nonprosecution el St 35 20 international sex trafficker was taidng the Fifth now a is ii 20 agreement was highly unusual. sins/ 21 when asked about Mr. Dershowitz. on If 21 I -- I had been a federal prosecutor for at nal 22 And so I was stymied in trying to get a x.i, 22 about four years, I had been a federal judge for about 0313 04 23 Information from Mr. Epstein at that point. I think el Sill 23 five-and-a-half years, so I had seen a lot of -- of, you 013307 24 there were two depositions, if I recall correctly off a 15 >3 24 know, nonprosecution types of arrangements. And one of a sew 25 the top of my head, that -- that I had an opportunity to mars 25 the things that was very unusual in this one is, it has ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 21 of 38 sheets Page 81 to 84 of 151 10/20/2015 01:07:28 PM EFTA01116766 85 013679 1 what I'll refer to as the blank-check immunity 01.3533 2 provision. 013014 3 There was a provision In the nonprosecution 0155 40 4 agreement that said, this agreement will prevent federal 01.3510 5 prosecution for international and interstate sex or 45 43 6 trafficking, not only of Jeffrey Epstein, and not only sinus 7 of the four women who were identified, but — and this mans 8 is a direct quote: Any other potential co-conspirator, 01)553 9 close quote. m. ass 10 And so that was unusual because what It — or so 11 what it seemed to be doing was that somehow this 01.n14 12 agreement was quite out of the normal and had been 013100 13 designed to extend immunity to other people that might en au 14 have been associated with Epstein. sines 15 And I knew that that category included the 014303 16 people that were involved in negotiating this highly 011x11 17 unusual provision included Mr. Dershowitz, who had been 0'3414 18 heavily involved, not only in the drafting of the ova sr 19 agreement, but had also been involved remarkably In oram 20 attacking the credibility of these girls and saying nix 21 things like, you know, it was — Epstein wasn't Ot3120 22 targeting minor girls, which just struck -- you know, I 033433 23 was -- I don't want to use a technical term, 413035 24 gob-smocked, that a defense attorney with an obligation sus y 25 to tell the truth was making a factual representation ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954)331.4400 01'37 40 1 044/44 2 01.37.47 3 • 37s1 4 013755 013714 6 013741 7 neo 8 O13403 9 013401 10 otsan 11 elan 12 0141115 13 elan 14 soils 15 011430 16 man 17 O1.31141 18 ova* 19 elan 20 o,,. 21 014137 22 oleo 23 01100 24 013041 25 87 that are said there, but Alessi puts Mr. Dershowitz at the nest of this international sex trafficking organization. Let's see. I think he said four or five times a year, two or three -- you know, two or three days when he goes there. And let's be clear, I know Mr. Dershowitz had said at some points like, I'm an attorney, and that's my client and so forth. And Alessi said, no, but this was not in a — in a lawyer/client capacity; this is in a friend capacity. And so now we have Alessi putting him there at the same time when young girls were there. And one of the -- the — the things that I picked up, so is Alessi — you know, is he able to figure out who these girls are? A photograph 111- shown to Juan Alessi in the deposition, and he I.D.s the photograph as, you know, V.R., so he -- he had, you know, put two and two together. So now I've got V.R. coming to the house at a time when Mr. Dershowitz is also in the house, and apparently spending, you know, two to three nights there and doing this four or live times a year. Now, Alessi wasn't the only one. There was Alfredo Rodriguez who was there in about 2004 to 2005, ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954)331-4400 013142 01 0144 elf 47 0121 VI 013114 013457 011414 011/141 013701 013703 10 owes 11 0137.4 12 0137» 13 014411 14 warn 15 0137 le 16 elan 17 014771 18 01'3774 19 ern 211 20 01:3749 21 wales 22 033733 23 0337)3 24 41 55 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 86 that Jeffrey Epstein was not targeting minor girls, when the Palm Beach Police Department had collected, you know, 23 of them that had all given essentially interlocking stories about how they had all gone over to this house, you know, the mansion, to give a massage and when they had gotten there, they had been sexually abused. So the kingpin wouldn't talk. The next echelon of the trafficking organization wouldn't talk. So the next step was to say, okay, let's see if we can find somebody, you know, lower level in there, you know, a household employee or something like that; maybe they will have some information about, you know, what this criminal organization is doing. Now, let's -- let's understand, you know, given the pervasiveness of the -- of the criminal activity, I -- I wasn't convinced that they were going to be able to get in there and start saying exactly what was going on because they might well be exposing themselves to criminal — you know, criminal culpability. But I -- I was able to read a sworn deposition from Juan Alessi, and Juan Alessi -- I think -- I don't know. Maybe Just to speed things up today, I won't go through all the things that are — ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 01 1414 01 ax 01 J. 54 01s101 01 mw ono 01 NY 0.01-14 00519 88 1 after the time period of ut it's part 2 of the common scheme or plan that we've been discussing 3 here. 4 And so in 2005, Alfredo Rodriguez says, yeah, 5 again, Mr. Dershowitz is there at a time when these 6 massages are going on. When you start to look at Alessi 7 and Rodriguez's statements in context where they're — 8 they're saying he's there at the same time the massages 9 are occurring, and with the West Palm Beach Police orlon 10 Department reports showing that massages are of a sexual main 11 nature, again, it started to put two and two together. or me 12 One of the things that was particularly ol yin 13 important about Rodriguez's situation was that Rodriguez 013434 14 had an access to what's been called the lithe black al nu 15 book, or I think he referred to it as the holy grail. 01n40 16 This was Jeffrey Epstein's, you know, telephone book o: nu 17 where he had telephone numbers in it. oi no 18 And so Rodriguez had that and, you know, I ran 19 guess thought that this would be worth a lot of money 013. so 20 because it would -- you know, it would identify all of tans, 21 the people that have been sexually abused by -- by 013054 22 Jeffrey Epstein. And so he tried to sell it. The FBI sine 23 busted him for that. stun 24 And when the FBI busted him, now he's got 014003 25 this book. And so the book went to Alessi, and ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954)331-4400 10/20/2015 01:07:28 PM Page 85 to 88 of 151 22 of 38 sheets EFTA01116767 014121 2 034121 3 01,133 4 014134 5 014136 6 014130 7 01410 8 014145 9 014140 10 89 01.430S 1 according to a ton later FBI report, Alessi 014301 2 identified information that was pertinent to the FBI's 014007 3 investigation. 014011 4 And so when I look at the little black book 014014 5 that I have seen copies of, there are a handful of names o,40 6 in that black book that have been circled, apparently by ono,: 7 Mr. Rodriguez, and one of the names that's -- that has 014025 8 been circled is Alan Dershowitz. And so that, to me, 014030 9 was suggesting that Mr. Rodriguez had identified, you 01 4036 10 know, Alan DershowItz as somebody who had information non 11 about this this international sex trafficking ring. era 12 But just as a side note, but an important eto 13 note, when the -- the thing that was circled on the Alan 014466 14 Dershowitz page was not a single phone number e, 400 15 Indicating, you know, somebody had bumped -- you know, coos, 16 Epstein had bumped into at one point. I believe there 0140 36 17 were 10 or 11 phone numbers that were associated with u 18 Mr. Dershowitz that had all been circled and an e-mail 014100 19 address as well. DI 41174 20 So that started to corroborate my sense that 0, no: 21 Mr. Dershowits was, indeed, a very close friend of 0141'0 22 Jeffrey Epstein. Now, I had then continued to do 014114 23 there's been reference today to, you know, using Google oin ol 24 to do research and so forth. So I Googled Jeffrey otn,o 25 Epstein and one of the things that pops up rather ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 381-4400 91 014232 1 a lot of money. I mean, Epstein was identified as a 01 402 2 billionaire in this article, billionaire with -- with a in on 3 8, so the record is clear. 014234 4 But he said, look, if Epstein lost all his Oleo 5 money -- I'm paraphrasing here -- I would be, you know, el coo 6 happy to walk down, you know, the Coney Island Boardwalk oleo 7 with him and discuss things with him, as -- you know, oleo 8 even if he didn't have any money. °lose 9 So now I'm seeing Dershowitz is a very close personal friend of Jeffrey Epstein. And then 1 started to look at flight logs. There were -- there were some very interesting things that I noticed on the flight logs. 014204 10 mass 11 014301 12 014301 13 o'.,oi 14 One of the things I noticed was when I began 014107 15 to, you know, get into this, that, you know, I was 014113 16 wondering, well, what -- well, how do these flight logs 0143114 17 come into the possession of, you know, law enforcement more 18 agencies? And the answer turned out to be that they had 014330 19 been provided by Epstein's defense attorney and -- and, 014373 20 you know, coincidentally, I suppose, or in my mind, slur 21 suspiciously, they were not provided by Just any defense 034130 22 attorney on this rather large defense team. They were woo 23 provided by one attorney according to Detective Recarey. 0143.36 24 Detective Recarey testified under oath that the flight 01a30 25 logs were provided to him by Alan Dershowitz. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 3314400 90 non 1 rapidly Is an article in Vanity Fair. And what you see In that article is, you know, discussion about Mr. Epstein, but when you're trying to do a profile of someone, you try to figure out who that person's closest friends are. And so the Vanity Fair author had gone to Alan Dershowitz, you know, our -- Mr. Dershowitz here, and had asked him, hey, what do you know about Jeffrey Epstein? And, again, off the top of my head, you want sr 4117 11 to know what 1 can remember right now. What I can 014140 12 remember right now Is that in the Vanity Fair article, 01411.) 13 the -- in the Vanity Fair article, Mr. Dershowitz said, 014114 14 I've written 20-some odd books; there's only one person *too 15 outside my immediate family with whom I share drafts, moos 16 and that's Jeffrey Epstein. enter 17 So I took that as indicating a -- a very 01010 18 close personal association that -- you know, among the *ion 19 people that that obviously he's sharing this -- these (non 20 kinds of things that he wants evaluated before he shares woo 21 them with the broader world, there's his immediate no,' 22 family and then there's -- there's Jeffrey Epstein. *ton 23 There was also another similar quote in the wow 24 article that indicated that — that Mr. Dershowitz said ran 25 that he wasn't interested in Epstein just because he had ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 92 01.4341 1 So one of the things that was -- was 014343 2 interesting is, Dershowitz has had access to these 014341 3 flight logs, and now I'm beginning to wonder, well, has 014346 4 there been an opportunity to sanitize those flight logs OS 43411 5 or remove any incriminating information? OS 4111 6 And — and one of the things that was 014144 7 interesting about the flight logs that were produced -- 0143$11 8 I believe just so the record is clear, that was Exhibit 034402 9 1 that -- if we could -- if I could refer -- I need to 01404 10 refresh my recollection as to -- well, I don't -- you 01407 11 may not want me to look at documents. 014404 12 It was either Exhibit 1 or 2 this morning 0i«1, 13 during Dershowitz's deposition which was covering a time 014415 14 period of January to, I believe, September 2005. These on 15 were flight logs that were produced by Mr. Dershowitz to e41.23 16 the Palm Beach Police Department. 014426 17 And you wonder why did they stop in nun 18 September -- you know, why stop in September 2005? ei errs 19 What's the significance of that? Well, later on, 01406 20 additional flight logs were obtained, and sure enough, nos 21 who shows up on an October 2005 flight log with Jeffrey 014446 22 Epstein? Mr. Dershowitz. en 444 23 So that led to a suspicion that mass 24 Mr. Dershowitz had provided to the Palm Beach Police at 44.1 25 Department flight logs that, the time period of which ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 23 of 38 sheets Page 89 to 92 of 151 10/2W2015 01:07:28 PM EFTA01116768 93 01404 1 for the production had been carefully crafted to keep II 440 2 him out of it; in other words, to not produce the 0,4411 3 October 2005 version. 014603 4 The other thing I - I began to discover as I oi.ssos 5 started going through some flight logs, Dave Rogers, who 014103 6 is one of I think about three pilots that — that 01010 7 Epstein regularly relied on to fly his — you know, he 010 0 8 had very fancy — to use the technical term -- Jets. ...sir 9 There were about -- there were about three pilots there. .).42, 10 One of them had some flight logs and that — co 4324 11 that was Pilot Dave Rogers, if I'm recalling his name Men 12 correctly. And so later on in the litigation, the sex oven 13 abuse litigation against Epstein, flight logs were °Ina. 14 obtained from Dave Rogers, and it was possible to -- to O1450 15 compare I'm sorry. I don't mean to — I want to make 01040 16 sure I get -- you know, the question is: How much can I 01 40 17 remember and I'm trying to make sure I get — get it all In. 01410 18 CO 4145 19 04144 20 And so the flight logs were produced from Dave Rogers. And so Dave Rogers produced some flight onssi 21 logs, and some of the flights that he produced logs for DI 64 22 coincided with the logs that Mr. Dershowitz had provided m.sso 23 to the Palm Beach Police Department, and there were ol.rol 24 inconsistencies. And so that, again, aroused my 04.0 25 suspicion that maybe Mr. Dershowitz when he had — ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 014633 1 0100 2 01413/ 3 014643 4 0100 5 01014 6 01044 7 014646 8 01060 9 014152 10 oven 11 0, 46 1, 12 env 13 nen 14 01006 15 0044 16 04701 17 0,47,1 18 014714 19 0100 20 O. OD 21 014724 22 04721 23 014724 24 04732 25 95 THE WITNESS: Right. No, I mean, I want to make -- I want to make clear that there was a lot of information that I was relying on in filing this pleading, and -- and, of course, the later pleading. So we are on the subject of flight logs. Flight logs showed that the flight logs Mr. Dershowitz had produced to Detective Recarey were incomplete and inaccurate. And so that led to concern on my part that Mr. Dershowitz had had an opportunity to sanitize the flight logs, had -- had -- had provided incomplete production, you know, obviously, very important production that the Palm Beach Police Department was looking at. Then we got some additional flight logs from Dave Rogers. And what those flight logs showed -- first off, lees talk again about the -- the production of those flight logs. My recollection is that Dave Rogers's flight logs were provided by Bruce Reinhart who was a former Assistant U.S. Attorney who had been inside the Southern District of Florida Office at a time when the Epstein case was the subject of regular discussion in that office. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 3314400 94 O1460 1 MR. SCOTT: I Just got a call from a lawyer 0144 01 2 on the screen. His -- his phone is not working, 014610 3 Epstein's lawyer, Darren Indyke. 0146.0 4 MR. SIMPSON: Why don't -- 0,«,0 5 MR. SCAROLA: Do you want to take a break for nee 6 a second? O1460 7 MR. SIMPSON: Well, why don't -- well, why olio.; 8 don't we let him finish his answer? noon 9 MR. SCAROLA: Let him finish the answer. 010N 10 MR. SCOTT: Yeah, let's do that. You're olog 11 right. 04621 12 MR. SCAROLA: Although it may take a while. THE WITNESS: It -- it's, I mean, the question -- MR. SCAROLA: Yeah. But let's -- MR. SCOTT: I don't care. MR. SCAROLA: Okay. Let's -- let's go ahead and finish. MR. SCOTT: Let's go ahead and finish the answer. We heard this much. MR. SCAROLA: Good. Thank you. THE WITNESS: Okay. So there -- MR. SCOTT: I don't want to break him on a 014021 13 014621 14 014621 15 0.4621 16 014625 17 man 18 014427 19 614421 20 0,4601 21 man 22 014631 23 ern 24 men 25 roll. MR. SCAROLA: Thanks. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331.4400 98 mon 1 And Men he had gone to week for some kind of mos 2 a -- a law firm or private operation that was 0.4701 3 located adjacent to Mr. Epstein's business. And 01044 4 so, now, Reinhart, who appeared to be being paid o14744 5 by Mr. Epstein, and certainly was adjacent to 014741 6 Mr. Epstein's business office, was producing 01051 7 these flight logs. 8 So that, again, aroused suspicion that the flight logs that were being produced would have been sanitized or inaccurate. But even — I mean, you know, I think the problem with -- you know, you can't sanitize everything. That would be too suspicious. And so what -- what was -- was -- what was evident on these fight logs was, for example, approximately ten flights by Mr. Dershowitz with Tatiana has -- has been discussed; with Maxwell; with Jeffrey fu en 18 Epstein. One of them had one female, which, 01 on 19 again, in the context that I was looking at, 014021 20 seemed to be a potential code word for camon 21 underage -- underage girl. Of 4412 22 And so those flight logs showed, you know, main 23 again, close association and travel with -- 014440 24 with -- with — with Mr. Dershowitz, and 0,4047 25 Mr. Epstein. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 3314400 01042 01054 9 moo 10 MOS. 11 014002 12 014402 13 01004 14 neon 15 men 16 014414 17 10/20/2015 01:07:28 PM Page 93 to 96 of 151 24 of 38 sheets EFTA01116769 97 99 elms, 1 Another thing that I had, and I will not 010116 1 going Into any confidential communications or Gin 2 reveal any privileged communications here or any onion 2 trying to waive in any way, I knew that David 011.1. 3 confidential information, but on December 30th, I 01 531,1 3 Boles had agreed to repres- ihai. 4 was aware that one of the preeminent lawyers in oiwn 4 which gave me additional confidence in the fact 014007 5 the Unites, had agreed to 015030 5 that I was also representing this young woman in 014410/ 6 represen nd given the vast ci,om 6 her effort to bring sex traffickers to Justice, 01011 7 amount of business that -- that, you know, tries 015037 7 and those who had sexually abused her to justice. 01411 8 to get in the door -- 01 tO 41 8 And so those are things that come to mind mais 9 MR. SIMPSON: Could I interrupt? I mean, I .,w. 9 immediately as -- let me just take a second and moo 10 think we are going towards a waiver here. oin 10 see if there were other things regarding 0,.01. 11 MS. McCAWLEY: Yeah. No, no, no, I do not -- 015010 11 Dershowltz that -- that come Immediately " 01.4020 12 MR. SIMPSON: We can't have testimony 41 3141 12 immediately to mind. 014911 13 about -- el sun 13 Oh, one of the things was in the Jane Doe 102 014021 14 MS. McCAWLEY: Yeah. 0.310, 14 complaint, which alleged academicians that had -- 014022 15 MR. SIMPSON: -- this is one of the most 01”14 15 that had abused -- sexually abused Jane Doe 3, 01011 16 respected people in the country, or lawyers In 013110 16 there -- there were -- so that raises a question, 014931 17 the country, and then you won't answer the elm. 17 obviously, of who were the academicians that Bob 01.4020 18 questions -- 015130 18 Josefsberg had Identified? 014024 19 THE WITNESS: Okay. 401111 19 I can't recall, actually. Let me -- the 01024 20 MR. SIMPSON: -- you said not to answer. 01 6113 20 record should be dear, I can't recall m 492, 21 MS. McCAWLEY: Oh. Well, describing David 015114 21 Immediately whether it was singular or plural. °two 22 Boies in general -- 011130 22 It may have been plural, but if it's singular, I °tam 23 MR. SIMPSON: I agree with the description. iiI51,6 23 don't want to suggest that there were other 014031 24 MS. McCAWLEY: -- doesn't constitute a oisio 24 academicians, but at least one academician had 01403) 25 waiver. 015141 25 sexually abused Jane Doe 3, according to the ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 98 100 O. 4032 i MR. SIMPSON: He's a distinguished lawyer. 01510 1 complaint that had been filed by Bob Josefsberg. 0143:1 2 MR. SCAROLA: And I don't think we are oi si 4, 2 There were two things that were of interest 014031 3 getting beyond anything that is a matter of 015140 3 to that: One was that Mr. Epstein, the man that 014037 4 public record. 416161 4 I wasn't able to get information from because he 014031 5 MR. SIMPSON: I just -- I -- 016134 5 was invoking the Fifth, had refused or declined 014.3. 6 MS. McCAWLEY: But I appreciate you -- 01$157 6 to file an answer to that complaint. 014034 7 MR. SIMPSON: Be aware of waiver. oi raw 7 Rather than deny the allegations, he had, 014050 8 MS. McCAWLEY: -- letting me know that. 01$241) 8 ultimately, it's my understanding -- I don't have moo 9 THE WITNESS: All right. I will be -- I will 01006 9 inside information and I'm not trying to waive 014011 10 not waive anything, and if I start to do that, I 01 6101 10 any information, but my understanding is that 01400 11 would certainly request the opportunity to -- to 01670 11 rather than answer the complaint, he settled the in ..s 12 retract what I'm doing, but I was aware -- since 0,52ii 12 case through the payment of some kind of 014.4 13 the issue is, well, what's in the public record, 015113 13 compensation that Jane Doe 102 found desirable 014060 14 I was aware that, you know, probably the most *Inn 14 for dropping her claim. 01 052 15 significant United States Supreme Court case eislo 15 The other thing that I found interesting is 014135 16 argued in the last 20 years was Bush versus Gore, 015111 16 that Josefsberg's partner, I believe it is, 0105. 17 which was a case that essentially determined who 01 US 17 Miss Ezell, had been to some of the depositions 01 500i 18 was going to be President of the most powerful 01970 18 of, for example, I believe Juan Alessi and *ism 19 country in the world. awn 19 Alfredo Rodriguez. And I believe at least one of oi soei 20 There were two attorneys who argued that case 0,034 20 those, and perhaps both of those. And she had 015005 21 in front of the United States Supreme Court, and oin 21 asked questions about Alan Dershowitz in those inn 22 arguing for the Democratic Presidential 015713. 22 depositions, but had not asked questions about eiwo 23 Candidate, Al Gore, was David Boies. 01510 23 other academics in those depositions. 41 01,7 24 He had put his credibility on the line in Gino 24 So that led me to conclude that Bob ti son 25 arguing the Bush versus Gore case, and without 013231 25 Josefsberg and his outstanding law firm had ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 1oRo12015 01:07: 25 of 38 sheets Page 97 to 100 of 151 EFTA01116770 015731 015214 015154 Sluts 015303 01002 013101 05 007 015303 03011 10 015113 11 0101$ 12 stun 13 etsni 14 013372 15 01014 16 011331 17 masa 18 um 33 19 011130 20 ciao 21 02010 22 020103 23 eons 24 ware 25 101 1 identified Alan Dershowitz as someone who had 2 information relevant -- and let's be dear, that 3 this is not a lawsuit about some contract dispute 4 or something -- that he was someone who had 5 information relevant to the sexual abuse of 6 underage girls and, indeed, they were asking 7 questions about what Information -- what 8 information he might have. 9 Another -- I know, I remember now, there's a whole other line of things that -- that I had in mind at the time, and I think since you want to test my memory -- I'm not -- let me be dear. I'm not claiming I have a superb memory. I have an average memory, but this is a subject that's very important to me, and so I've worked, you know, very hard to get all the information. I would like to take a break. MR. SCAROLA: Sure. Take a break. THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are going off the video record, 3:27 p.m. (Thereupon, a recess was taken.) THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are back on the video record, 3:41 p.m. THE WITNESS: I want to continue my answer. I'm sorry. I got emotional there for a moment. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 02-23 02525 03 Of 020112. 02000 02002 02034 020114 03001 030341 10 0040 11 mot« 12 020140 13 anew 14 war. 15 cows: 16 arm. 17 *flora 18 ciarci 19 021407 20 0 ,011 21 ann. 22 °nag 23 071031 24 21021 25 103 let me clear all of that misunderstanding up. 2 You know, that's -- frankly, if I had gotten 3 something like that, that's what I would have 4 said. 5 The answer that came back was -- from 6 Mr. Dershowitz was something along the lines of, 7 If I remember correctly, well, tell me what 8 you -- you -- tell me what you want to know and 9 I'll decide whether to cooperate, was I think the phrase that was used. And -- and so there was an attempt, you know, a 2009 attempt, a 2011 attempt to get information from W. Dershowitz. Then there was another subpoena without deposition for -- for documents. You know, we have heard a lot about records in this case that could prove Innocence. There was a records request to Mr. Dershowitz In 2013. And, again, my understanding was that there was no -- you know, no documents were provided on that. And so those -- I had that Information. Another bit of information that I had was that in 2011, I believe in early April -- this Is not Ieged information from Is Is a telephone call that she placed from Australia where she had been ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331.4400 awn 1 I want to do a good job fo 04412 2 on -- on representing all t ma,. 3 that Is available to support her. 02100 4 The next thing that I was thinking of was, ram I. 5 all right, then the question Is: Well, what does 021423 6 Mr. Dershowitz have to say about all this? So I 0140 2? 7 started to look at the information on that as 021424 8 well. ran 9 In 2009, there had been a deposition request inn 10 sent to Mr. Dershowitz, and I -- I saw a document 024:13/ 11 showing that that had actually been served on - - am do 12 on him, and, you know, to the extent that what I one« 13 saw was a -- I think a receipt from the process one 4. 14 server, or something along those lines, so I saw eras, 15 attempt to contact him in -- in 2009. 010053 16 And then I saw an additional attempt to mess 17 contact him in 2011. Mr. Scarola had sent him a ono' 18 note and there was, you know, some back and oimii 19 forth. The -- the one note that -- that jumped nom 20 out to me was one in which Mr. Scarola had mom 21 written to Mr. Dershowitz, I think the phrase 020•12 22 was: Multiple witnesses have placed you in the ow. 23 presence of Jeffrey Epstein and underage girls; rain 24 would like to depose you about those subjects. tams 25 And the answer that came back was not, well, ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 011027 1 0021 2 onI 3 izirof 4 02.102. 5 au, 41 6 woo 7 oakum 8 021044 9 an. 10 nu 11 *met 12 nloi 13 021116 14 gene; 15 021112 16 02114 17 021”. 18 0311 11 19 021111 20 021121 21 021123 22 02 1120 23 021124 24 01131 25 104 essentially forced into hiding by Jeffrey Epstein. She managed to escape and was hiding out in -- in Australia, and that she would -- that somehow, you know, Mr. Scarola and Mr. Edwards were able to reach her and there was a telephone call that was made. And in that telephone call she Identified Alan Dershowitz as someone who would have relevant information about Jeffrey Epstein and the sexual abuse of underage girls. And so I had that Information as well. So that, as I understand, the question was: What could I recall off the top of my head with regard to the factual basis for information connecting Mr. Dershowitz with the sexual abuse of minor girls, plural, and that, sitting here at this moment, is the best that I can recall for the information along those lines. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. Was that answer -- MR. SCAROLA: Excuse me. Before -- before you go on to another subject, Professor Cassell is entitled to refresh his recollection to give you a complete response. So why don't you go ahead and do that now. Make sure you've covered ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 10/20/2015 01:07:28 PM Page 101 to 104 of 151 26 of 38 sheets EFTA01116771 105 107 stns. 1 everything. 02 034 2 MR. SIMPSON: I'm -- I think I get to ask the awn 3 questions, but I was going to ask the same nom 4 question. 02 Ill. 5 MR. SCAROLA: Wonderful. We are on the same ono 6 page. co no 7 BY MR. SIMPSON: a nn 8 Q. Mr. Cassell, you -- you mentioned that you an:„ 9 had something that you had prepared -- a,... 10 A. Yes. a,... 11 Q. -- that would summarize 02016 12 A. Right 011140 13 Q. -- your knowledge. otitis 14 A. Right. sin.. 15 Q. And now that you have exhausted your 02 SI 16 recollection, could you produce that and let's Just mark 02 I'S. 17 It .- 02014 18 A. Yeah, sure. ono 19 Q. -- as an exhibit? 02 030 20 MR. SIMPSON: We are up to Exhibit 3, I 021110 21 believe. Cassell 3. ozi?oi 22 THE WITNESS: Right. Now, there -- there are olio 23 two parts to this -- ono 24 MR. SIMPSON: Can we mark it first and room 25 then -- ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954)3314400 106 moot 1 THE WITNESS: Yeah. I just want the record num 2 to be clear, that I'm only looking — there's 02 n .1 3 there's a pre-December 30th section and a az u,o 4 post-December 30th section, so the top part is 02 013 5 the -- Is what I was working off of. moll 6 BY MR. SIMPSON: nee 7 Q. Okay. 02 $713 8 A. Now, underneath this is — you know, If you ovine 9 have questions about what happened after December 30th. OZ 120 10 Q. So you're -- you're prepared to produce the 0212n 11 entire document, but you're clanfying? I don't -- I oz an 12 don't want to ask you -- If you're going to use it in not 13 your testimony, then we will mark the whole thing. 02 02) 14 MR. SCAROLA: Mark the whole thing. You can can 15 use it. ono 16 MR. SIMPSON: Mark the whole thing and I'll nun 17 ask you about it. 02030 18 THE WITNESS: That would be great. O2O3119 Absolutely. non 20 MR. SIMPSON: All right. I'm Jag to ask Ca )2 3S 21 the court reporter to mark as Cassell Exhibit 3, en 22 a one-page document that the witness has just 01242 23 handed to me. It's mostly typed. It has some ion.. 24 handwriting on it. nos. 25 (Cassell I.D. Exhibit No. 3 - one-page ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331.4400 • na 1 document produced by the witness was marked for nine 2 identification.) 020 TO 3 THE WITNESS: All right. So let me -- If I 013311 4 could look at this to see If It -- the top non 5 portion of it to see if it refreshes my 020.0 6 recollection about 02 $3 IS 7 BY MR. SIMPSON: own 8 Q. Could I Just see it for one second? On WI 9 A. Sure. Absolutely. non 10 Q. All right. Yeah. Let me just clarify one 02132) 11 point before you do that. 071322 12 A. Yes, sir. 02130 13 Q. In your answer, were you referring to the 02)32e 14 evidence you could recall or the information you could ono 15 r II th u rt d your allegations as to both 02 ISM 16 other minors, or were you treating 02nm 17 those separately? 021337 18 A. No, I was not treating those separately. I oz no 19 was — for me, there's a common — what what the law 021342 20 refers to as a common scheme or plan in a -- 02110 21 Q. Okay. nom 22 A. — a criminal conspiracy for international no.. 23 trafficking that Involved not just a single girl, but ono 24 multiple girls. So the answer was -- was with respect 0713 S2 25 to -- to multiple girls. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 108 02 013 1 Q. Okay. So I may have some questions to pass 2 distinguish further between those two •- 021W 3 A. Yes. 021314 4 O. -- but is it fair to say that -- and I 021402 5 realize you're going to refresh your recollection, but oznin 6 that you had exhausted your recollection of the basis to °of 7 for the allegation in this Exhibit 2, the motion to join nuts 8 as to both Miss Roberts and other minors? 02,40 9 A. Yes. oa,ur 10 Q. Okay. So then, now, take a look at that and 021420 11 tell me if there's anything there that refreshes your nun 12 recollection as to something that you have not yet told ono 13 me about. o no 14 021444 15 *2144* 16 Rust 17 02 II 53 18 02,00 19 canoe 20 or sae 21 nuts 22 nu„ 23 02 IS 1S 24 ono 25 A. So this refreshes my recollection. Sarah ante ere. Adrianna Mucinzka was [lac run name or [nose -- that's the second echelon of the — of the -- of the criminal conspiracy. Oh, this refreshes my recollection that Jeffrey Epstein had answered some questions In the civil litigation. He provided, for example, names of — of some people who were involved, but he took the Fifth when asked — he took -- he provided names of some ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954)331-4400 27 of 38 sheets Page 105 to 108 of 151 10/20/2015 01:07:28 PM EFTA01116772 109 111 eon>, 1 people who would have relevant information in the civil runes 1 strategy to sort of stall the investigation to say: a 15 n 2 cases, but when asked in deposition about 021003 2 Well, we will get you Epstein; oh, we can't meet now; a IS 29 3 Mr. Dershowitz, he took the Fifth. onset 3 oh, we will get it now -- and then — and so forth. on 4 so I — I found it significant that for some num 4 And one of the things that I noted from all 011533 5 a it 35 6 people, he was willing to answer questions, but with regard to Mr. Dershowitz, he took his — he Invoked his es mos 5 onto 6 that was that Mr. Dershowitz, as Mr. Epstein's attorney, never ultimately produced Epstein for a meeting with the on>, 7 Fifth Amendment right against compelled 02%14 7 Palm Beach Police Department, having made another offer. ono 8 self-incrimination presumably because revealing what he 02 WU 8 Now, obviously, something could have happened o ,s4. 9 knew about Mr. Dershowitz would, you know, cause 02 *le 9 there. I mean, I don't -- you know, I don't know what a: is.. 10 criminal -- criminal charges potentially to be filed a an 10 was the communications and so forth, but as an attorney atisst 11 against him. awes 11 trying to get information and unable to do that, I had nisi, 12 There was a common scheme or plan, and I'll awn 12 to make some reasonable inferences. 72 ,000 13 elaborate on that in a moment, but yeah, one of — so Ran 13 And so one of the Inferences ! began to draw ow,. 14 this was another point. I mentioned that — that there awn 14 was that this was a stall tactic by Mr. Dershowitz, and ant u 15 had been three efforts to get information from ass. 15 In my view, potentially, an unethical one, but I antis 16 Mr. Dershowitz by way of a 2009 deposition request, a asp 16 don't — I don't think we need to get into that in this 02 is 2> 17 2011 deposition request, and further follow-up a is* 17 litigation. 02 1024 18 correspondence from counsel on that, and a 2013 document nun 18 What I saw was a stall tactic going on, 0»0 31 19 request all propounded to Mr. Dershowitz that had not as.. 19 and — and the reason I think it was a stall tactic, as 02 IOU 20 gone answered. en a 20 we are sitting here now in, what is it, October of 2015, 02 *0 35 21 Yeah, and this was — yeah, I'm sorry, this caner 21 and Mr. Epstein has never been willing to answer 02 15 37 22 slipped my mind at the time -- but When -- when we saw alas. 22 questions about his sexual abuse of these girls. 02 ea 23 Mr. Dershowitz not responding to these answers, you sass 23 And this was back in around -- what was it? 02 144. 24 know, maybe the mall didn't get delivered to him or cam 24 I guess it would be 2005, 2006, you know, roughly a ono 25 something like that. I don't — I suppose that's, you arta 25 decade ago, Mr. Dershowitz was offering to make Epstein ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 (954)331.4400 110 112 02 150 1 know, a theoretical possibility. alter 1 available. And then that never happened, and given the 02 to to 2 But — but the reason I ruled out that non 2 ten-year pattern that — that developed — I guess I co isw 3 to 1465 4 possibility, first, it didn't seem likely; but secondly, there was a pattern of Mr. Epstein's associates evading wrists 3 ant. 4 should go back. I'm sorry. Let me correct my answer. We should go back to December 30th, 2014. So 001412 5 efforts to get information from them. canna 5 there -- there appeared to be about an eight-year period 02 002 6 And so let me just go back to the earliest Ok1521 6 of time during which Mr. Epstein had refused to answer to nos 7 Instance of that. According to the Chief of Police in 011024 7 any questions about his sexual abuse of girls and yet 02 **a 8 a nn 9 the Palm Beach — of the Palm Beach Police Department, Mr. Dershowitz had said that he would make available arum 8 anal 9 Mr. Dershowitz said, oh, it's just a scheduling Issue and — and we will get the Palm Beach Police Department 02 9 il 10 Mr. Epstein for questions about the — the sex, you asp 10 to — to, you know, to meet and — and learn all this. a o n 11 know, abuse that was going on. And, you know, MOW 11 The other thing that I'm -- that I'm seeing 10 1721 12 Mr. Dershowitz had said to the Palm Beach Police 021930 12 here, so now there's — there's -- Mr. Dershowitz had w it n 13 Department, yeah, we will make him available; no, we got alio 13 been involved in concealing Mr. Epstein from the Palm 07 1725 14 ea 17 2.5 15 to reschedule ft; you know, and then another time, reschedule, another time. And so there were multiple -- can 14 mow 15 Beach Police Department, but there were others that had done similar sorts of things. 0: *u> 16 according to the Chief of Police, there had been Ansa 16 So one of them was a Ghislaine Maxwell. I 72 ,* 3. 17 multiple, you know, requests to interview Mr. Epstein arms 17 will just call her Glenn Maxwell. I think that's kind COO 21 18 and Mr. Dershowitz had repeatedly said: Oh, yeah, we mess 18 of the nickname I understand she goes by. 07 1741 19 will schedule that, and then it hadn't happened. awn 19 So Glenn Maxwell — remember, she is — she 07,743 20 Now, obviously, there could have been a non 20 is the one, you know, I think the record is clear, in — 07 57 41 21 situation there where, you know, an emergency had come 021003 21 in -- in litigation that, you know, an allegation has 071747 22 up for Mr. Epstein and he wasn ' t able to make a schedule WM 01 22 was the one that — that brought a 170 23 or something like that. But what I saw was a — was a 022008 23 to the — into the sex trafficking, 02 17 52 24 anu 25 pattern of offers to — to meet and then withdrawals, and that seemed to me to be a deliberately calculated amt 24 n's 25 and was heavily Involved with — you know, on all the — not all the flights, but on many of the flights with ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 (954) 331-4400 28 of 38 sheets 10/20/2015 01:07:28 PM Page 109 to 112 of 1S1 EFTA01116773 113 115 0220 lk 1 Jeffrey Epstein where -- where this seemed to be going to 1 what his excuse was, but, you know, evaded the ono 2 on and was very dose to Epstein, staying at the mansion 022231 2 deposition and, in fact, later information came to light 022222 3 frequently. e2713 3 he was hiding out in, you know, in the mansion of onn 4 And so she would, obviously, be -- I guess if on,, 4 Epstein while he's claiming he's unavailable for -- for onn 5 noon 6 you have Epstein at the -- the top of the — you know, the kingpin of the operation, Maxwell would be, you can* 5 022230 6 deposition. So -- so this pattern of Mr. Dershowitz, you 0220 )0 7 know, a close second or certainly at, you know, the nag 7 know, where there were three attempts to obtain 0220 32 8 higher echelon. 022144 8 Information from him, if that's all I had, I guess that 0720)3 9 So, obviously, someone who would have, you sane 9 would have been one thing. But what I had was a pattern CI 20 35 10 know, very significant information about, you know, the on« 10 of people who were implicated in this sex trafficking 0>MM 11 sex trafficking, who were the other people that the — ono 11 ring evading questions, you know, quite in violation of 027011 12 the girls were being trafficked to, what kind of abuse 012247 12 court orders and depositions and things — I shouldn't 071074 13 was going on, you know, what kinds of sex toys were 022254 13 say court order — in violation of the deposition 027044 14 on.. 15 being used to abuse them, because I think It was in her room or -- or adjacent to her room that many of these — omol 14 rano 15 notices that were being sent and agreements being made, you know, through counsel. 07:047 16 these devices were located, and so she would have had onaos 16 And then in addition to that, I had this, so on,: 17 very significant information to provide. ran is 17 why — why would you think that, you know, there's this 077017 18 And so in connection with the civil cases one 18 sex trafficking, you know, ring going on? It sounds 0)>I CA 19 that some of the girls had filed against Mr. Epstein, 012117 19 kind of farfetched. 022102 20 on, os 21 her deposition was set, in fact, by my co-counsel, Mr. Edwards, and then there was some haggling over a sena 20 wino 21 Well -- well, one of the things that I had available to me on December 30th was a photograph that on. so 22 confidentiality agreement, you know, what are we 02202 22 was widely available on the Internet, and that onn2 23 gonna — and that had all been worked out, and then she 02126 23 photograph depicted three people. on, i4 24 was set for a deposition and finally agreed, you know, came 24 Glenn Maxwell, Prince Andrew, and 022114 25 to a deposition. en" 25 the — at the time that It looked ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954)3314400 (954) 331-4400 114 116 own 1 And Just shortly, you know, I think a couple tans I Ii n underage girl. She was not as o 2 ono 23 3 of days before that deposition, she canceled. And well, she didn't cancel. Her — her attorney called to cancel 022143 2 sena 3 dressed in formal attire. And Prince Andrew had his arm around her, I think If memory serves, and right next — Rain 4 the deposition and represented that Miss Maxwell was nail 4 smiling in the background is Miss Maxwell, and it RV 30 5 outside the United States of America and had no plans to on r. 5 appeared that that was a private residence, presumably on, h 6 return back to the United States. 022111 6 in London, dose to Buckingham Palace where — where o2a 35 7 And so, at that point, the deposition was -- 022400 7 Prince Andrew lived. our* 8 was not able to go forward. But it turned out that she 0224441 8 And so here was Prince Andrew with this ern o 9 had not left the United States for an extended period of 02240 9 underage girl with Glenn Maxwell, the — the right-hand all 45 10 time. She was spotted later at a wedding of a prominent 072.96 10 girl, if that's the right expression — I probably 0221. 11 person In New York. 6224o 11 should say — strike that -- right-hand woman of -- (02160 12 And so that was Maxwell fitting into this 022411 12 of — of Mr. Epstein -- that were there and somebody had 01210 13 pattern of, you know, Epstein was being told — you 0244+e 13 taken the photograph. ansi 14 know, the Palm Beach Police Department being told by 02241. 14 Given the surrounding circumstances, I 022457 15 Dershowitz that Epstein will answer your questions, and owl, 15 thought perhaps Mr. Fret ' tograph. 012203 16 then, you know, not -- not getting Information, Maxwell ewer, 16 So that would have show exual abuse 02220 17 evading the deposition. 0224M 17 was not confined just to , to the once 18 Jean Luc Brunel was another person who seemed ran 18 New York mansion; it would have -- it would have 022204 19 an ,o 20 to be very much involved in — in trafficking the girls, and it was the same situation. A deposition was set to ems 19 anon 20 presumably continued into London where one of, you know, the highest, most powerful persons in the governmental en,, 21 try to get answers, you know, who is involved, which ware 21 structure that — that exists in England was now 022216 22 girls are involved, what are their names, what's — 0124'47 22 involved in — in sexual abuse. an 17 23 what's going on? ten 23 And so that created grave concern about, how ono 24 And so Brunei's deposition is set and then 0214'52 24 far did this sex trafficking ring reach; what were their 022220 25 he — he finagles out of It too. I don't recall exactly ten 25 connections; what were their abilities to influence, you ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954)331-4400 (954) 331-4400 29 of 38 sheets Page 113 to 116 of 151 10/20/2015 01:07:28 PA EFTA01116774 117 119 fano 1 know, law enforcement agencies in those countries, you rams 1 Mr. Dershowitz was trying to do the same an... 2 know, in England, or law enforcement agencies In this 02200 2 thing and it is a difficult situation. cane 3 canal 4 country, through -- through power that, you know, somebody at that level, fifth I think In line to the onus 3 ens sr 4 A. All right. Q. So I was not trying to make light of the nn IS 5 British Throne, would have, you know, presumably access came 5 questions I'm asking you. Gana 6 to levers of power that other people might not — might num 6 A. Right. This Involves sexual abuse — nil 7 not have. rano 7 Q. I understand that. 022171 8 And so that Is the -- I believe is the -- the num 8 A. -- of multiple girls. rarrrt 9 information that I h d oval ab e o me on December 30th rant* 9 O. I understand that. Your -- I understand the ran= 10 involving not just t the entire sex 022704 10 allegations that have been made. 40 22 Ds 11 trafficking organl . 02206 11 A. And your side keeps attacking these girls. en 4, 12 Q. Okay. And that -- just to clarify again, it 012700 12 That's why It's emotional for me. 022142 13 exhausts your refreshed recollection as to both the 02022 13 Q. That -- that part is not true, but I will ask 02230 14 information you were relying on as to the allegations rano 14 questions -- an 48 15 about to the allegations about 02113 15 A. I believe that part Is true. any 16 other minors; is that right? 0070 16 THE WITNESS: I would like to take a break. *mu 17 A. Correct. can is 17 I'm sorry. onss) 18 Q. So I don't have to ask you separately about 0277 If 18 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are going off the video 02206 19 Roberts? 02201 19 record, 4:01 p.m. erns 20 A. That's right No, and I gave you a heads-up, nmin 20 (Thereupon, a recess was taken.) 00426 21 that was going to be a long answer. 01041 21 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are back on the video *note 22 Q. You made Mr. Dershowitz look like an amateur. ma., 22 record, 4:04 p.m. ran., 23 If I could -- 021047 23 (Thereupon, Kenneth A. Sweder, Esquire, Alan 012003 24 MR. SCAROLA: I'm sorry. Uke a what? on.., 24 M. Dershowltz and Carolyn Cohen left the ran.. 25 MR. SIMPSON: Amateur, at the long answers. on... 25 proceedings.) ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 (954) 331-4400 118 120 02607 1 THE WITNESS: Well, I wasn't trying to -- let 00040 1 MR. SCAROLA: The record should reflect that carte 2 me be clear. I want the record to be dear: I anon 2 Mr. and Mrs. Dershowitz have -- are no longer tntn 3 was not trying to filibuster. You asked me a 0200 3 present. 622412 4 very direct question which was: I want to know 02300 4 MR. SIMPSON: Correct. an* a. 5 everything that was in your memory on December 023064 5 MR. SCAROLA: Thank you. 0202 6 30th, and as you can tell, this was a very 02306 6 BY MR. SIMPSON: 02020 7 important subject to me, and its very important ran 7 Q. Mr. Cassell, would you agree with me that rann 8 to Miss Roberts, and I wanted to be 02 llco 8 accusing someone -- ern,. 9 comprehensive. 02310 9 MS. McCAWLEY: Oh, I'm sorry. (just tans 10 And I gave you the opportunity to say, onto4 10 realized that she stepped out to get water, I 02)62.1 11 let's -- let's have a narrower question, and -- 023106 11 believe. I didn't ask. I'm sure it's nun 12 but you wanted the broad question and that's why ex me 12 probably okay -- nnv 13 I did this, so I wasn't.. ono, 13 THE WITNESS: R's all right. 073630 14 BY MR. SIMPSON: wrap 14 MR. SCAROLA: It's all right. 02030 15 Q. Mr. Cassell, I apologize for attempting humor 021111 15 MR. SIMPSON: That's okay with you? an s. 16 in this intense situation. 02 31 10 16 THE WITNESS: Sure. 022633 17 A. This is very Important to me. te p ii 17 BY MR. SIMPSON: ono, 18 Q. i -- I -- I -- 023113 18 Q. Would you agree with me that accusing a 022636 19 A. This Is not — this Is not something that I ea 3117 19 person of -- an adult of engaging in sex with a minor is awn 20 find funny. 01 ,1 24 20 a serious accusation? One 44 21 Q. And -- well, It -- like I say, It's very 0131 n 21 A. Sure. 02260 22 important to Mr. Dershowitz, or Professor Dershowltz 0010 22 Q. And would you agree with me that the cause of can4s 23 also. He was trying to answer questions. I'm not 023133 23 Victims' Rights is harmed and not furthered by false ars 0 24 anon 25 questioning that you were trying to answer my question, and 1 appreciate it 0331n 24 00141 25 allegations of sexual abuse? A. Sure. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 (954) 331-4400 10/20/2015 01:07:28 PM Page 117 to 120 of 151 30 of 38 sheets EFTA01116775 Exhibit 4 EFTA01116776 154 IS? 1 APPEARANCES CONTINUED 1 IN 111E CIRCUIT COURT OF TIE SEVENTEEV7H 2 JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN ttie FOR Telephonically on behalf of Jeffrey Epstein: 2 MUSD COUNTY. FLORIDA 3 3 CASE NO. CACE 15.000072 DARREN K. IN DYKE, PLLC 4 4 BY: DARREN K. INDYKE, ESQUIRE 5 EIRICLEY J. WORDS and PALL G. CASSELL. 575 Lexington Avenue 6 6 4th Floor Plaintiffs/Counterclaim DefendentS. New York, New York 10022 7 vs. 6 Tel: 212.971.1314 8 9 AM M. OERSHCWIT2. 7 10 Also Present: Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff. s 11 DON SAVOY, videographer 12 9 BRADLEY J. ED WARDS 13 ALAN M. DE RSHOw IT2 (Telephonically) 14 VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF 10 15 PAUL G. CASSEU_ 11 16 TAKEN ON REHM, OF THE DUBOW' 12 17 VOI IRE II RYES 152 to 1,15 13 18 14 16 19 16 20 Saturday. October 17. 2015 17 21 8:32 0.m. - 12:14 p.a. 18 22 19 425 North Andreae Avenue 20 23 Suite..2 Fort Lauderdale, FICr1C18 33301 21 24 22 25 Theresa Remelt S. SR 23 24 ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS 26 (954) 331-4400 ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 153 155 1 APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL 1 INDEX OF EXAMINATION 2 2 WITNESS PAGE On behalf of the Plaintiffs: 3 SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA 3 PAUL G. CASSELL 4 BARNHART & SHIPLEY, P.A. BY: JOHN SCAROLA, ESQUIRE 4 CONTINUED DIRECT EXAMINATION 160 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard BY MR. SIN PSON West Palm Beach, Florida 33409 6 6 Tel: 561.686.6300 7 Fax: 561.383.9541 e-mail: meo•seartylaw.com 6 INDEX TO EXHIBITS 7 On behalf of EXHIBIT DESCRIPTION PAGE 9 BONES SCHILLER a FLEXN ER, LIP 10 BY: SIGRID STONE McCAWLEY, ESQUIRE 9 401 East Las Olas Boulevard Cassell's J.D. Exhibit No. 4 - document 203 11 Suite 1200 10 produced by the witness Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 12 Tel: 954.356.0011 Fax: 954.356.0022 11 Cassell's 1.0. exhibit No. S - copy of 229 address book 13 smccawley.bsfIlp.com 12 14 Cassell's 1.0. Exhibit No. 6 - series of 309 On behalf of the Defendant: 13 e-malls, Bates numbered BE -510 - -514 15 WILEY REIN LLP 14 16 BY: RICHARD A. SIMPSON, ESQUIRE AND: NICOLE A. RICHARDSON, ESQUIRE 16 17 1776 K Street Northwest Washington. DC 20006 16 18 Tel: 202.719.7000 19 Fax: 202.719.7049 E -mall: rsimpson•wileyrem.com 17 20 18 Also on behalf of the Defendant: 21 COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, P.A. 19 (Original Exhibits have been attached to the original transcript.) 22 BY: THOMAS EMERSON SCOTT, IR., ESQUIRE 20 9150 South Dadeland Boulevard 21 23 24 Dadeland Centre II • Suite 1400 N lam 1, Florida 33156 Tel: 305.350.5329 72 23 Fax: 305.373.2294 24 26 E-mail: thomas.scott0csklegal.cam 26 ESQUIRE DEPOSTION SOLUTIONS ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331.4400 (954)331-4400 I of 46 sheets Page 152 to 155 of 335 10/20/2015 01:08:15 PM EFTA01116777 1 2 3 4 coccci 5 030003 6 coo e? 7 comic 8 000011 9 comic 10 CO 00 10 11 0003 111 12 00 03 20 13 COM 23 14 030024 15 000024 16 000027 17 °cool, 18 CO C030 19 03 CO 31 20 rams 21 rams 22 030044 23 156 DEPOSITION OF PAUL G. CASSELL Saturday, October 17, 2015 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are now on the video record. Today is Saturday, the 17th day of October, 2015. The time is 8:32 a.m. We are here at 425 North Andrews Avenue, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, for the purpose of taking the videotaped deposition of Paul G. Cassell. The case is Bradley J. Edwards and Paul G. Cassell versus Alan M. Dershowitz. The court reporter is Terry Tomaselli, and the videographer is Don Savoy, both from Esquire Deposition Solutions. Will counsel please announce their appearances for the record. MR. SCAROLA: Jack Scarola on behalf of the Plaintiffs. MR. SIMPSON: Richard Simpson of Wiley Rein on behalf of the Defendant and Counterclaim Plaintiff, Alan Dershowitz. With me is my colleague, Nicole Richardson, and Thomas Scott of Cole, Scott & Klssane, also for Mr. -- Professor con 24 Dershowitz. cocci* 25 MR. SCAROLA: Before we begin the deposition, ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 157 COCOS, 1 we were informed for the first time yesterday won 2 morning of the existence of a recording of a coccoi 3 telephone communication between Alan Dershowitz 010106 4 and a woman identified only as Rebecca. cool 10 5 That Information was conveyed to us 030413 6 subsequent to Professor Dershowitz's sworn 000.44 7 testimony that no recording existed, but now that 0001.30 8 we know that the recording existed and that it 030123 9 was obviously made according to the 0430123 10 representations given to us, prior to the 0201x, 11 completion of the responses to our earlier 01013, 12 discovery requests, I would like to know whether 0301 34 13 it is the Defendant's position that It is con 14 necessary for us to propound a new discovery cool co 15 request to get information that dearly should 000142 16 have been disdosed in response to the earlier 000140 17 discovery request. wow 18 Is that the position that you're taking? 000144 19 MR. SIMPSON: First, Mr. Scarola, I believe *cols? 20 you have mischaracterized Professor Dershowitz's cons, 21 testimony. You didn't ask the question whether 00 01 SI 22 he made a recording. Yesterday morning, he °mu 23 provided that information in response to a ocsic. 24 different question. 030200 25 MR. SCAROLA: His exact testimony was: I ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 O0020, 000204 03020 01021:6 CO 02 Ca 030244 004044 000208 000210 158 1 never thought to record it, but that's fine. 2 MR. SIMPSON: We don't -- we don't need to 3 make that -- 4 MR. SCAROLA: We don't need to discuss that. 5 The question is -- 6 MR. SIMPSON: What you're saying does -- 7 MR. SCAROLA: -- are you going to produce the 8 recording without the necessity of a new request 9 to produce, or will it be necessary for us to CO 02 13 10 file a new request to produce? mm,. 11 MR. SIMPSON: As Mr. Scott indicated 030217 12 yesterday, we will respond to you to the CO 02 10 13 discovery request. We will confer at a break and CO 0221 14 respond to that question. I don't want to take C00224 15 time on the record debating it. After Mr. Scott ratan 16 and I have conferred at a break, we will respond man 17 further to your question. max 18 MR. SCAROLA: All right. So that the record con 19 is dear, it is our position that the recording 030236 20 Itself, any evidence of any communication between con 21 Mr. Dershowitz and Rebecca and/or Michael, any notes with respect to any such communications, 00 02 SO 23 text messages, e-mails, and an accurate privilege 000241 24 log as to everything that is being withheld Is 000301 25 responsive to the earlier request to produce, and ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 000145 22 159 1 that the obligation was to have provided it to us 2 previously and Is to provide it to us now. 3 We understand that you're considering that 4 and you will respond, so we can proceed with the 5 deposition. 6 MR. SIMPSON: Yes. And we disagree about 7 that, and as you know, we have a motion to compel 8 regarding your inadequate privilege log. 9 MS. McCAWLEY: Just before we begin, I'm sorry, I didn't announce my appearance for the record. Sigrid McCawley from Boies, Schiller & Flexner, and I have a standing objection that I'd just like to repeat on the record. MR. SCOTT: Feel better that you got that off your chest? MS. McCAWLEY: With r me. own 17 With respect to my die she is asserting her attorney/client privilege 000110 19 with her attorneys and is not waiving it through 000141 20 any testimony here today, and that I object to 000144 21 any testimony elicited that would be used as a CO 03 47 22 subject of waiver for her attorney/client 000144 23 privilege. 24 MR. SIMPSON: Would you reswear the witness, 25 please? ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 000304 030300 mm„ 0101,1 moo 030314 000317 0303 11 030324 0303 24 10 000124 11 000317 12 000331 13 000132 14 *on 15 000333 16 000137 18 10/20/2015 01:08:1S PM Page 156 to 159 of 335 2 of 46 sheets EFTA01116778 000012 2 000434 3 000430 4 0004 21 5 000442 6 Man 7 040447 8 000447 9 mao 10 00 0.41 11 COMO 12 sis 13 034600 14 mama 15 tenet 16 cmitos 17 tents 18 00x11 19 D346 I/ 20 gic es I. 21 0004 24 22 63.:11) 23 CO Of 21 24 000120 25 6 7 000404 8 loom 9 000101 10 wow) 11 00040. 12 wag 13 CO 04 10 14 000a 14 15 Maw 16 0004 th 17 Maul 18 020420 19 000421 20 160 Thereupon, 2 PAUL G. CASSELL, 3 having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified 4 as follows: 5 THE WITNESS: 1 do. CONTINUED DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. Good morning - A. Good morning. Q. -- Mr. Cassell. As of December 30th, 2014, had you ever met with en? Q. person? A. Once. Q. When was that? A. Approximately May 2014. Q. May of 2014? A. Yes. 100422 21 Q. Who was present for that meeting? Maio 22 A. I'm just pausing for a second because don't — I think we're - Q. I -- I'm not -- A. - clearly not trying to get into ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331.4400 020420 23 010414 24 000410 25 And how many times had you met with her in 162 000026 1 Q. And when you say 'all day," what time period 00063, 2 are you referring to? CO sr 3 A. 9:00 to 5:00. 010533 4 Q. 9:00 to 5:00. Okay. Md was that through wan 5 lunch; you Just stayed through eight hours; is that -• won 6 what's your recollection of that? 0303 41 7 A. Yeah, I remember we were working very hard wan 8 on -- on it, so I think we had, if I recall correctly, man 9 had lunch brought in and worked straight through that. 0004 44 10 Q. Any other meetings in person with rem 11 Miss Roberts before December 30th of 2014? COMP 12 A. No. cater 13 Q. My telephone calls with her that you -- you 030103 14 had, obviously, before December 30th, 2014? D20007 15 A. I believe there were a couple of — of 0204 (4) 16 telephone calls. wow 17 Q. And can you tell us when those were? C00412 18 A. Let's see. Roughly September 2014. Give or town 19 take a month. I mean, you know, sometime after May and n 20 before December 30th. mom 21 Q. Okay. And were those telephone calls between 000121 22 just you and Miss Roberts, or was anyone else on the 000431 23 line? own 24 A. No. It was just the two of — just own 25 Miss Roberts and I. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954)3314400 161 020411 1 attorney/client communication. O. I'm not asking you for what was said at this point. I'm Just asking you who was present. Pm going to ask you where It was, those kind of questions. A. Sure. Yeah. The main person who was present was Bradley 3. Edwards, my Co-PlaIntiff in this case. Q. Okay. And Miss Roberts obviously was present? A. Q. A. Yes. Anyone else present? You know, there were — this was at the Farmer, Jaffee office here, and so persons who were associated with the law firm were assisting, but those were the main people. Q. Okay. Do you remember any of those other people associated with the law firm who were present? A. Present for, you know, coming In and assisting, I believe Brad's assistant, Maria, was there, and perhaps others at the firm, but it was — it was basically Brad and I. Q. Was there anyone else who attended for the entire meeting or a substantial portion of the meeting? A. No. Q. Okay. How long did the meeting last? A. Approximately all day. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 3314400 00002$ 000631 CO KC CONDO COMB 000449 CO Otri NOR CODS 54 9 Q. I'm going to ask you a question now, but tea 10 before you answer it, pause, because I believe you will arum 11 be instructed not to answer it -- .ova 12 A. Okay. worn 13 Q. -- but want to -- I think -- we disagree on were, 14 the privilege -- 00016715 A. Sure. one 16 Q. -- we believe it's been waived. wow 17 My question is: During the meeting, did you won 18 discuss Professor Dershovetz? 000711 19 MS. McCAWLEY: I'm going to object to any 0407 IS 20 discussion of what my client told you during any am PI 21 situation where you were representing her as 000721 22 an -- an attorney. DA 07 22 23 MR. SIMPSON: So-- and I think we had an a 0724 24 agreement yesterday, if you follow your own Minn 25 counsel's instruction on not answering, are you ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954)331-4400 163 1 Q. Okay. And are you able to distinguish the 2 calls in your mind as two separate telephone calls? 3 A. I - I think there were either one or two 4 calls. I think there may have been two, but it — it 5 would not have been more than two that I can recall. 6 Q. Okay. How long did each of the telephone 7 calls last? 8 A. Less than five minutes. 3 of 46 sheets Page 160 to 163 of 335 10/20/2015 01:08:15 PM EFTA01116779 0007211 010132 900722 000730 COON 030742 0007 .14 100718 000749 020753 10 wont 11 cows) 12 worse 13 0207$4 14 Nom 15 ruin 16 come 17 mot ic 18 Doan 19 020014 20 020210 21 C00971 22 9009 29 23 000829 24 000029 25 164 1 also going to follow Miss McCawley's instructions 2 on not answering on behalf of -- 3 MR. S ollow the 4 instructions sel. It is 5 not his privi ethically 6 obliged to respect the direction coming from 7 8 9 I'm -- I'm simply, Mr. Scarola, making my record that the witness -- MR. SCAROLA: I understand that. MR. SIMPSON: Right. We disagree. MR. SCAROLA: I understand, but you can assume the same way I have authorized you to assume that Professor Cassell will follow my instructions, Professor Cassell will also follow all instructions concerning the assertion of attorney/client privilege exp by Miss McCawley on behalf MR. SIMPSON: All right. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. So, Mr. Cassell, based on that, I will assume that If I ask you what you recall the discussion being at the meeting or at each of the phone calls, that you're not going to answer those questions; is that correct? ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 020904 1 02040* 2 mull 3 C001112 4 000415 5 030015 6 yews 7 0001113 8 000923 9 eiveou 10 0, 09 a 11 CONN 12 ay.. 13 woe° 14 con 15 meta 16 beau 17 00351 18 sons, 19 con 20 tease 21 0)03 SI 22 woo 23 otos: 24 001006 25 166 and all that goes into the advice that they were giving her and surrounding that advice, so I would object to that. MR. SCAROLA: Could I have the question read back? (Thereupon, a portion of the record was read by the reporter.) MS. McCAWLEY: And I would like to clarify what case as well that you're referring to. MR. SIMPSON: All right. Let me ask the question, and -- and I will note for the record that yesterday, the witness testified that the fact that Mr. Boles was representing Virginia Roberts was significant to him. So it's sort of being used as a sword and a shield here, but I have only asked the question. I'll clarify. MR. SCAROLA: We haven't used it any way yet. MR. SIMPSON: Well, the -- the witness volunteered. Shall I put it that way? And we have a waiver. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. But, in any event, my question is: Have you spoken -- before December 30th of 2014, had you spoken with David Boles about itions regarding Professor Dershowla? ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 atom as meat 2 0003 20 3 001130 4 900932 5 0209.23 6 .o 7 9000 77 8 D22.139 9 900944 10 NOW 11 00 011411 12 0).11-41 13 mono 14 coon+ 15 woe 16 900962 17 mon, 18 000136 19 even 20 ton 21 to osoi 22 030902 23 woo. 24 evevex 25 165 MS. McCAWLEY: Yes. THE WITNESS: Yeah, obviously not. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. Okay. A. I mean, I have a duty to my client which I'm going to respect. Q. All right. So we'll -- we'll take that up later with the judge. As of December 30th, 2014, had you spoken about this case with David Boles, and the question is just: Had you spoken -- MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. -- not what the discussion was. MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. Its the common-interest privilege. BY MR. SIMPSON: 0. I'm only asking if there was a discussion, no substance at all. Just, was there a discussion? MS. McCAWLEY: I'm going to instruct you not to answer that. MR. SIMPSON: Okay. You're taking the position that the fact of whether or not -- MS. McCAWLEY: Yes, because you're also trying to get into the timing of communications, ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 o0 ten soon 9 001024 10 001021 11 0010211 12 001029 13 001029 14 con 15 own 16 001022 17 001023 18 Ce1024 19 001030 20 C01011 21 cow.: 22 co.D., 23 00 1044 24 runes 25 Lena 167 1 MR. SCAROLA: Without getting Into the woo 2 substance of any such discussions, you can answer eviovi 3 that question. gen 4 THE WITNESS: My recollection is no. to ivio 5 MR. SCOTT: I think you're right on that one. Go wn 6 BY MR. SIMPSON: .on 7 O. Okay. So the answer is, no, you had not 8 spoken with him? A. My recollection -- MR. SCAROLA: Judge Scott has issued a ruling, so -- MR. SCOTT: I wrote several opinions on that actually. MR. SCAROLA: -- we'll proceed. THE WITNESS: Let me go back -- MR. SCOTT: In the Context of criminal lawyers. THE WITNESS: I'm trying to remember if I wrote any opinions on that one when I was a Judge. My -- I don't recall, but -- I don't recall. I -- my recollection is I had not personally spoken to David Boles before December 30th, 2014. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. Okay. Had you, before December 30th of 2014, ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 10/20/2015 01:08:15 PM Page 164 to 167 of 335 4 of 46 sheets EFTA01116780 00t01. 1 001414 2 001102 3 ono, 4 00 1113 5 001111 6 001111 7 coins 8 001111 9 00 11 11 10 ,0112.3 11 001134 12 02 113313 to 77 14 00112. 15 031131 16 <Own 17 COHN 18 001140 19 00 ,,.2 20 0011 .6 21 tottilAlt 22 eons, 23 001143 24 (ell% 25 168 spoken with any other lawyers at Mr. Boles' firm? A. My recollection Is, no. Q. And after December 30th of 2014, have you spoken with Mr. Boles abo allegations against -- MS. McCAWLEY: Again, I'm going to object. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. -- Professor Dershowitz? MS. McCAWLEY: Sorry. I will let you finish. I'm objecting to this. I think it gets into the substance of conversations under the common-interest privilege, whether there was a conversation, but you're getting into the substance of what the conversation was about, and I think that is a violation of her -- her privilege. MR. SCAROLA: And just so that I can clarify our position on the record, I think that we can identify the general subject matter in order to support our position that It falls within the common-Interest privilege. So we are willing to answer the question about the general subject matter to support our assertion of common-Interest privilege, but not get Into the substance of the communications beyond that. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331.4400 0014 Si 001434 00145) COUS• ca1501 MISC. COiSOB War COON 031510 10 C01111 11 00µu 12 ocnu 13 coon 14 °eon 15 *env 16 ORO'S 17 001621 18 con2. 19 W 162, 20 0)163I 21 00 1614 22 C01637 23 0216424 Olt ISM 25 170 1 record, 8:47 a.m. 2 MR. SCAROLA: As it turns out, while we may 3 reach some issue of privilege at some point in 4 this discussion, the answer to your pending 5 question is, no, so there's no privilege concern. 6 MR. SIMPSON: All right. I'll -- I'll ask 7 the witness for the -- 8 MR. SCAROLA: Sure. 9 MR. SIMPSON: -- the -- the answer. I'll move to -- I'll reask the question. THE WITNESS: Sure. That will be good. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. My question is: I believed you had already answered the question as to before December 30th, 2014, you had discussed Miss Roberts' allegations against Professor Dershowitz, and you said, no; is that right? MR. SCAROLA: David Boies. MR. SIMPSON: David Boles. I'm sorry. THE WITNESS: Before December 30th, no discussions that I can recall with David Boles. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. After December 30th, 2014, did you have any discussions with David Boles about Professor Dershowitz? A. Can I -- MR. SCAROLA: You can answer yes or no. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331.4400 171 001161 1 °ono 2 Gone 3 00006 4 001207 5 0120 6 001217 7 ono 8 001215 9 011:22 10 001224 11 00 1221 12 00 12 20 13 0.9727 14 00,221 15 Dann 16 071232 17 0.1231 18 6)-1231. 19 001237 20 C.1717 21 nu 22 OOP 23 (0,450 24 0014.50 25 169 MR. SIMPSON: And I believe Its the same question that was answered a moment ago for a different time period, and again, I'm not asking for any substance. I'm just asking whether, since Dece ave discussed the allegations Inst Professor Dershowitz. THE WITNESS: I would like to confer with my counsel on that question. It gets into a complicated legal issue that I'm not sure I can -- MR. SIMPSON: You want to confer on a privilege issue; is that right? THE WITNESS: I want to confer with my counsel before answering that question anyway. MR. SIMPSON: I Just want to clarify -- MR. SCAROLA: With respect to privilege. MR. SIMPSON: All light. As long as it's with respect to privilege, you're entitled to do that. THE WITNESS: Okay. THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are going off the video record, 8:45 a.m. (Thereupon, a recess was taken.) THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are back on the video ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331.4400 mists 1 to no 2 BY MR. SIMPSON: 1147 3 001112 4 gono Wusl lelitl 000551 0004% 9 Daisy 10 “Issa 11 nom 12 00,10, 13 001602 14 00,103 15 00,40. 16 Come 17 THE WITNESS: Yes. Q. You did. A. Yes. 5 Q. What was the substance of those 6 communications? 7 MS. McCAWLEY: I'm going to object to that. 8 You -- it's under the common-interest privilege and It's Virginia's privilege to waive, and she's not waiving it. MR. SIMPSON: Okay. MR. SCAROLA: We -- we assert the common-interest privilege with regard to the substance as well. MR. SIMPSON: All right. And that -- that will be -- that will be asserted as to all questions about the substance of the discussions osiso• 18 with Mr. Boies; Is that right? 0016„ 19 MR. SCAROLA: I can't say that for sure. 00%014 20 MR. SIMPSON: All right. Let me ask my oleo 21 question then. so is is 22 MR. SCAROLA: And let -- maybe this -- maybe sow, 23 this will help you and maybe it won't. But, 00 15» 24 obviously, there have been some public statements 001617 25 with regard to this general area. If the ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331.4400 5 of 46 sheets Page 168 to 171 of 335 10/20/2015 01:08:15 PM EFTA01116781 172 001013 1 communications were not considered to be 0016 /4 2 privileged at the time that they were made, we 001(40 3 can answer questions about that. If they were coins 4 considered to be privileged at the time they were 001041 5 made, we can't answer questions. ooleo 6 So I can't tell you that there's a blanket CO NUS 7 assertion. We need to hear the question. 02100 8 THE WITNESS: I need the question back. 20 "0 9 MR. SIMPSON: All right. co Na 10 BY MR. SIMPSON: 0000 11 Q. What did you discuss with Mr. Boles about the 02 "33 12 allegations against Professor Dershowitz? coma 13 MR. SCAROLA: And that is common-interest win. 14 privilege information and we do assert a 0216o 15 privilege. BY MR. SIMPSON: 00001 17 Q. Did you discuss with Mr. Boies any *yin 18 discussions he had had with Professor Dershowitz? 0%704 19 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. 0217410 20 MR. SCAROLA: Same objection. Same *eon 21 instruction. 001711 22 BY MR. SIMPSON: 1101712 23 Q. Did you discuss with Mr. Boles any documents mini 24 that Mr. Boles had reviewed? mina 25 MR. SCAROLA: Well, let me -- again, I don't ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 173 cans) 1 want to be asserting a privilege to questions as • 2 to which the answer is no, so you can answer 01111 /1 3 generally as to whether the subject matter was co 1700 4 covered In any discussion that you had with 0/042 5 Mr. Boies. Dino 6 THE WITNESS: Okay. Diva 7 MR. SCAROLA: Okay. If the answer is no. If 03110 8 the answer -- as I sink down In this chair, if to m 9 the answer may be yes, you can't respond. CO 1150 10 MR. SIMPSON: I -- I -- that's a new version. mini 11 MS. McCAWLEY: I'm afraid -- yeah, I want to -- I'm sorry. I want to confer on that because I have an objection. /owe 14 THE WITNESS: I have to say I want to confer, 0411/04 15 I'm confused, too, so let's take a short break. MR. SIMPSON: Again, you're conferring on the 11101 17 privilege now, not the substance? mina 18 THE WITNESS: That's right. 031400 19 MR. SCAROLA: Can we go off the record? 101114 20 MR. SIMPSON: Yes. con.. 21 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Going off the video co ny 22 record, 8:48 a.m. Di na 23 (Thereupon, a recess was taken.) re /OM 24 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are back on the video 022000 25 record, 8:52 a.m. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 021700 16 onto 1 001014 2 0020" 3 0.2021 4 022023 5 0250 6 401/101 7 MOO 8 002043 9 0020 44 10 ono 11 mon 12 110200 13 *ono 14 002053 15 anon 16 002001 17 0021101 18 021011 19 mese 20 0205, 21 01210) 22 main 23 002120 24 002112 25 174 MR. SCAROLA: Because of concern about a -- an inadvertent potential waiver of the work-product privilege, while it is not our intent to assert a privilege with regard to nonexistent communications, any effort to identify the subject matter of communications in the questions that you asked will require that we assert work-product privilege with regard to those questions. MR. SIMPSON: Okay. We disagree, obviously, on that position. MR. SCAROLA: We understand. MR. SIMPSON: So I will ask some additional questions and we will see if the witness answers them. MR. SCAROLA: If it begins: "Did you talk about," the answer is going to be an assertion of privilege. MR. SIMPSON: Okay. MR. SCAROLA: Okay? MR. SIMPSON: I'll ask the questions. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. Did you discuss with Mr. Boies any meetings Mr. Boies had had with Professor Dershowitz? MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 00,10 12 COI. 01 13 CO /OM 16 052113 002115 032115 02210 0021/2 002121 002121 002125 002125 0021a 10 002141 11 002144 12 175 1 MR. SCAROLA: Objection. Same instruction. 2 BY MR. SIMPSON: 3 y 5 Q. Did you ' • "s views as 4 to the credibilit MR. S 6 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. 7 MR. SCAROLA: Same instruction. 8 BY MR. SIMPSON: 9 Q. Did you discuss with Mr. Boies any allegations about sexual misconduct by Les Wexner? MR. SCAROLA: Same objection. MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. 00044 13 MR. SCAROLA: Same Instruction. 002144 14 MR. SIMPSON: That's the same question you 15 allowed to be answered. Old you -- let me ask it 200 70 16 a different way. 002. 41 17 BY MR. SIMPSON: 002%40 18 Q. Did you discuss, In any way, Les Wexner with 012151 19 Mr. Boles? CO211% 20 MR. SCAROLA: Same objection. rorisi 21 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. 2024" 22 MR. SCAROLA: Same instruction. ootl .3 23 MR. SIMPSON: He's instructed not to answer Dina 24 whether that topic was discussed? 0121a 25 MR. SCAROLA: Yes. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331.4400 10/20/2015 01:08:15 PM Page 172 to 175 of 335 6 of 46 sheets EFTA01116782 176 00 lls? 1 MS. McCAWLEY: Yes. 00 21 Sl 2 MR. SIMPSON: Okay. 002122 3 BY MR. SIMPSON: 002,02 4 Q. Did you discuss former Prime Minister Barak cones 5 with Mr. Boles? 00220 6 MR. SCAROLA: Same objection. arm 7 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. ono 8 MR. SCAROLA: Same instruction. CO 23 10 9 BY MR. SIMPSON: omit 10 0372,4 11 rota 12 omn 13 Q. Yesterday, you mentioned that one of the reasons that supported your conclusion that it -- you had an adequate basis to allege in the joinder motion that the allegations against Professor Dershowitz was toms . es. 032231 you recall 0122 If representin 032230 17 Q. And you said that because of how highly es, ma*, 18 0.32245 19 mass 20 tons. 21 022744 22 007250 23 01725, 24 00 2,13 25 regarded Mr. Boles was, I think you mentioned the Bush v. Gore case; Is that right? A. Yes. Q. I used to work for his opponent in Bush v. Gore case. They are both very good. A. I'm trying -- I was trying to remember. I ' m sorry to take time, but who was the other lawyer? Q. Ted Olson. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331.4400 177 037/ 54 1 A. Ted, that ' s right. That's... 032715 2 Q. But that's a side note. 00»62 3 My question is: Given your high regard for 032303 4 Mr. Boies, iews as to the 0023 07 5 credibility mething that would 032,10 6 be import he case? 071 23 I?' 7 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. 002312 8 MR. SIMPSON: Are you instructing him not to CO 23 IS 9 answer? 0323'15 10 MS. McCAWLEY: I mean, Is it a hypothetical? no 11 MR. SIMPSON: No. I'm just asking whether 03.21.54 12 his views -- those views -- I'm not asking what 032310 13 the views are. I'm simply asking whether those 002323 14 views would be Important to him. 002323 15 MR. SCAROLA: You may answer that question. toms 16 THE WITNESS: Yes. 002325 17 BY MR. SIMPSON: awn 18 O. And if I -- I may have asked this already, 0013 30 19 but did you discuss with Mr. Boles his views as to the CO,,,. 20 credibility of Miss Roberts? 0023 34 21 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. 39 22 MR. SCAROLA: Same objection. Same (ono 23 instruction. 0023 4, 24 BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. Prior to December 30th of 2014, had you ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331.4400 002253 25 002310 1 002401 2 0024,4 3 0024 64 4 002414 5 0324 14 6 CONN 7 CON 24 8 0024» 9 40 24 32 10 032432 11 00 24 a; 12 00243. 13 003413 14 0024$ 15 00246, 16 CO 24 63 17 012601 18 oats*, 19 tom. 20 rem, 21 00 25. 10 22 00 25 12 23 4023,2 24 Goa it 25 178 discussed gations of sexual misconduct against Professor Dershowitz with Bob Josefsberg? A. Me personally? Q. Yes, you personally. A. No. Q. After December 30th of 2014, had you -- did you discuss with Mr. Josefsberg Ms. Roberts' allegations against Professor Dershowitz? A. Not personally, no. Q. You say not personally. Are you aware of someone else who had those discussions of -- with Mr. -- had any discussions on that topic with Mr. Josefsberg? MR. SCAROLA: To the extent that that question would call for any information that was communicated to you In the context of the common-interest privilege, you should not answer. THE WITNESS: All right. I'm not going to... MR. SCAROLA: So you -- you can answer it if any such communication came to you outside the context of the common-Interest privilege, but you may not include in your response any information derived from the common-interest privilege. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. And my question right now Is not the ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331.4400 179 002517 1 substance. We will get to that. But, to your °Dna 2 knowledge -- put -- let me rephrase that. oariv 3 Did someone tell you that they had discussed 002624 4 with Mr. Josefsbergs )osefsberg, the allegations made non 22 5 by Miss Roberts against Professor Dershowitz? 10x34 6 MR. SCAROLA: You may only answer that eons 7 question to the extent that you had any toms 8 communication regarding that subject matter with Dona 9 someone outside the common -Interest privilege, or 402540 10 the attorney/client privilege for that matter. 032S 40 11 BY MR. SIMPSON: toms 12 Q. I ' m simply -- I'm not asking for substance, 002,51 13 just the name If you did. co no 14 MR. SCAROLA: Well, I understand that, but 002.54 15 following along the same lines as before, you are asking us to identify the subject matter of a sem, 17 communication that is privileged. We won ' t 0X0. 18 answer questions regarding the subject matter of 00240/ 19 privileged communications, but if *ones 20 Professor Cassell had a conversation with Sam onto 21 Smith standing on the street corner about Bob one o 22 )osefsberg, he can answer that question. come 23 BY MR. SIMPSON: ton 24 Q. Did you have a conversation with anyone 002024 25 just narrow question: Did you have a conversation with ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 002117 16 7 of 46 sheets Page 176 W 179 of 335 10/20/2015 01:08:15 PM EFTA01116783 002/24 1 002032 2 CON15 3 011131 4 con.; 5 002142 6 <ono 7 101143 8 0030 44 9 CON 40 10 00710 11 cone 12 00201 13 00»» 14 01211/0 15 01127 01 16 conc. 17 orno. 18 002707 19 own 20 m]>10 21 00211. 22 (0 212. 23 032123 24 CO 2? 13 25 180 anyone who told you that they, that person, had discussed the subject matter o allegations against Professor Mr. Josefsberg? Just did you discuss it with anyone? MR. SCAROLA: Same objection. Same instruction. MR. SIMPSON: Okay. MR. SCAROLA: If you want to rephrase the question to ask lam whether he had such a conversation with anyone outside the attorney/client or work-product privilege, that's a question that we are obliged to answer. The question, as you phrased it, is a question that we are precluded from answering. MR. SIMPSON: That's a very strange notion of privilege. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. But let me ask it this way: Did you discuss with anyone who is not an attorney -- let me rephrase it a different way. You testified yesterday about your understanding of the scope of the alleged common-interest privilege, correct? A. Yes. Q. Putting aside the people within the scope of ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 012$42 10 011145 11 CO2047 12 cons 13 cone 14 wan 15 012.62 16 032813 17 COMO 18 00 29 00 19 0D2905 20 00».0 21 had discussed with Mr. Josefsberg 002910 22 legations against Professor 002020 23 cons, 24 MR. SCAROLA: Same objection. Same 012923 25 instruction. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331.4400 182 tun 1 helpful. So please just instruct him to answer 012124 2 or not answer, and we will let the Judge decide. 012127 3 MR. SCAROLA: Well, the instruction -- I only 0:1207/ 4 gave the explanation in the hope that It might 612131 5 facilitate the examination and allow you to move 012.33 6 to areas where you can get substantive genie 7 information. 0/2129 8 I apologize if you consider it a waste of come 9 time. So I will simply instruct Professor Cassell not to answer the question as phrased. If you ever want an explanation as to the basis of my instruction, I'm prepared to give that to you. MR. SIMPSON: Thank you. That -- that's a helpful way to proceed. MR. SCAROLA: Okay. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. Have you -- well, let's start this way: Have you discussed with any of the attorneys within what you described as the common-Interest attorney/dient group, 181 007123 1 that privilege -- 002723 2 A. Yes. eon 3 Q. -- that you identified — Mit> 4 A. Uh-huh. 002171 5 Q. -- your definition of It -- mini 6 A. Right. That's right. 002731 7 Q. -- did you discuss the topic -- did anyone Dann 8 tell you they had discussed the topic of Virginia C0.27 3? 9 Roberts's allegations against Professor Dershowitz with co07.3 10 Mr. losefSberg? cert.. 11 MR. SCAROLA: You may not answer that C07111 12 question to the extent the question still 00,43 13 encompasses attorney/client privileged cons 14 communications. If you want to rephrase the 0127 00 15 question to exclude both common-Interest 1021n 16 privileged communications and attorney/client cows: 17 privileged communications, that's a question we CO n co 18 are prepared to answer. maul 19 Otherwise, we are prohibited from answering 102102 20 the question as phrased as a consequence of it con m 21 encompassing privileged communications. con u 22 MR. SIMPSON: As he defined the 012014 23 common-interest privileged group, it included 002117 24 attorney/client, but I think at this point the 032020 25 explanations you're providing aren't really ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331.4400 032970 1 can 2 002171 3 032111 4 007/35 5 002040 6 002141 7 002947 8 002944 9 012041 10 oozes, 11 1/1103 12 00)01213 costs 14 ones 15 rows 16 cox° 17 0030 20 18 001025 19 00 3024 20 (11/0 II 21 CO 30 31 22 03303. 23 CO 30 34 24 00 3034 25 183 BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. Have you discussed with anyone who is not an attorney for Miss Roberts whether -- strike that. Has anyone who Is not an attorney for Miss Roberts told you that they had discussed with Mr. )osefsberg the allegations against -- by Virginia Roberts against Professor Dershowitz? MR. SCAROLA: Same objection. Same instruction. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. Have you personally spoken with anyone else at Mr. )osefsberg's firm, other than him, about Virginia Robert's allegations against Professor Dershowitz? A. Not to my knowledge. MS. McCAWLEY: I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Can you read that back? MR. SCAROLA: Was a communication with anyone else in Bob )osefsberg -- Bob )osefsberg's firm, personal communication between Professor Cassell and any firm member of Bob 3osefsberg. MS. McCAWLEY: Okay. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. And the answer was, not that you recall? A. Not to my knowledge. I don't know all the members of his firm, but I certainly have no ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331.4400 10/20/2015 01:08:15 PM Page 180 to 183 of 335 8 of 46 sheets EFTA01116784 033037 1 sown 2 00 30 40 3 Q. Okay. corn 4 A. I -- I think the record should be dear, wows 5 I'm -- I'm an attorney and a law professor in Salt Lake 0030 16 6 City, Utah, and my understanding, he's an attorney here 03304/ 7 in Florida. So I don't ordinarily interact with — sows, 8 with, you know, attorneys in Florida, other than the 013364 9 ones that I'm interacting with on — on this case. Ins 10 MR. SCAROLA: Which is now occurring on a oi 30 32 11 very regular basis. Lem: 12 BY MR. SIMPSON: 0 3101 13 Q. Mr. Cassell -- 03 31,1 14 MR. SCOTT: No teaming, Mr. Scarola, please. tom, 15 BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. -- did -- didn't you testify yesterday that CO 3100 17 the fact that Mr. 3osefsberg's firm had filed a 033:,0 18 complaint against Miss Roberts, who is also your client, son,, 19 to be significant to your evaluation of the case? wan 20 A. Yes. con r 21 Q. And if it -- if that was significant to cost is 22 evaluation of the case, why are you telling us you don't C03120 23 normally talk with attorneys in Florida? Doesn't he 03)1 2$ 24 represent -- at one point, represent the same client? sena 25 A. Right. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 184 recollection of talking to, you know, anyone who is — who was in his firm. 003101 16 013220 1 earn 2 Gorr 3 003330 4 003237 5 003230 6 00)230 7 cores 8 eons 9 cons 10 tone 11 013316 12 tense 13 003302 14 003303 15 03301 16 003304 17 00330? 18 cones 19 to rn 20 33 33 If 21 03 33 33 22 03 33 19 23 03 )3 II 24 03 33 31 25 186 BY MR. SIMPSON: O. Have you ever -- I'll rephrase the question. Have you ever discussed with Pt. Boles his views as to whether or not Miss Roberts is mistaken in her allegations against Professor Dershowitz? MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. MR. SCAROLA: Same objection. Same instruction. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. Prior to December 30th of 2014, had you personally reviewed any of the flight logs that had been referred to in the testimony in this case? A. All right? O. My only question is whether you personally reviewed them. A. Yes. Q. What flight logs have you reviewed; how would you describe them? A. Both Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 2 that were shown to Mr. Dershowitz yesterday. Q. If -- I believe those were Exhibits 6 and A. Okay. -- but can we agree that flight logs were marked as exhibits? ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954)331-4400 185 wan 1 Q. And so wouldn't it be natural for you to be corn 2 speaking with -- at least within the realm of something 03310 3 one might expect for you to speak? 0)3133 4 A. If I were a solo representative of Virginia torn 5 Roberts, that would be the case, but I think you're 003140 6 obviously aware that I have co-counsel on this case, and 0131 0 7 there are other attorneys who are also participating in eons 8 this matter. 00310 9 So I think it would be obvious that if 0031.16 10 there's a division of labor, it might not be along the 03310 11 lines that you're suggesting. And I can't go any eoxa 12 further without going into work product and other issues 003130 13 surrounding Miss Roberts' representation. ocinei 14 Q. Has Mr. Boies ever told you that he believes is nos 15 Miss Roberts was mistaken in her accusations against comas 16 Professor Dershowitz? inane 17 MR. SCAROLA: Same objection. Same 00Y/11 18 instruction. anon 19 MS. McCAWLEY: Same instruction. 03331) 20 THE WITNESS: I'd Ilke to confer with my 0333 n 21 counsel on a attomey/dlent privilege issue In into 22 connection with that question. oLrar 23 MS. McCAWLEY: Can I Just write down the cone 24 question and -- raw 25 MR. SIMPSON: -- I'll rephrase it. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 003332 003330 00 3331 0033 30 003334 coax 00133? 00330 00 330 03 3300 10 03 33 30 11 03 3.00 12 03 34 03 13 mato 14 A. No. Lour 15 Q. How do they not? What Is --what is the spun 16 explanation for your conclusion in that regard? 033416 17 A. Right. We talked about this yesterday, so co slo 18 I'll Incorporate to speed things up some of the 003122 19 testimony that I gave yesterday. 403433 20 What the flight logs showed was, to my mind, 41416 21 evidence of potential doctoring, evidence of -- of souk, 22 selective presentation of evidence. Mr. Dershowitz had corm 23 presented to a law enforcement agency, at their request, 003431 24 apparently what I understood to be the -- the — I mu a 25 understood that he had been requested by a law ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 187 1 A. Right. The two composite exhibits of flight 2 logs I had examined previously. 3 Q. Okay. So the same documents that Professor 4 Dershowitz was shown at his deposition; is that right? 5 A. That's my recollection, yes. 6 Q. Okay. When did you review those? 7 A. So one of the reviews was in May 2014. There 8 may have also been an earlier review at an earlier — 9 earlier time, but I definitely remember reviewing them in May — approximately May 2014. Q. Would -- do you -- Isn't it true that those flight logs support Professor Dershowitts testimony that he was never on a plane witl 9 of 46 sheets Page 184 to 187 of 335 10/20/2015 01:08:15 PM EFTA01116785 188 coma 1 enforcement agency to provide flight logs relevant to 00527 2 this investigation. ON 17 3 And rather than providing all the flight logs con., 4 that were available at that time, he appears to have 03.3112 5 provided flight logs that went from January 2005 through out' 6 September 2005, knowing that he appeared on an semoi 7 October -- I may be off by one month here — but on an 063004 8 October 2005 flight log. 00350e 9 So that, to my mind, had indicated that seen 10 Professor Dershowitz was providing selective information wen 11 to law enforcement. Those concerns — this is, you 0.3511 12 know, there's — there's more to it. roe +0 13 The other problem was that the flight logs ern 14 that Mr. Dershowitz had produced were inconsistent with wen 15 the flight logs that Dave Rogers, one of Mr. Epstein's con,, 16 pilots had, so there were now inconsistencies on these aux 17 flight logs. And it seemed to be -- it seemed to me to cone 18 be surprising that during the period of time where 19 nvolved, Mr. Dershowitz was not roue 20 ght logs. 00 330 21 Now, it is possible, I suppose, and that inns 22 seems to be Mr. Dershowitz's position, that the reason west 23 he's not on those flight logs is that he was not on mass. 24 those flights. But given all of the information -- and was S7 25 1 won't take your time this morning to go through — all ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-9400 189 coat so 1 the information I had about this international sex come, 2 trafficking organization, it seemed to me that it was to 36 05 3 also possible that the sex trafficking organization, coma 4 which was represented by, you know, vast resources and 00x0, 5 the ability to produce witnesses and documents and other wen 6 information that would would cover up the existence wain 7 of this organization, had gone through the flight logs 0)3012 8 and had made necessary alterations to— to conceal the mum 9 scope of -- of the -- of the operation. con 10 In addition to that, when I started to no 11 compare the Dave Rogers' flight logs with the David -- con la 12 excuse me. I am going to get a drink. COMO 13 When I started to compare the -- oh, I'm tone 14 sorry. I should be looking at the camera. con 15 When I started -- when I started to compare con 16 the Dave Rogers' flight logs with the Dershowitz ^ )1.1. 17 which we call them the Dershowitz flight logs, which cone 18 were the logs that he had produced, there were map 19 Inconsistencies, and so it struck me as odd that there co,,., 20 were these inconsistent flight logs. CO WO) 21 The other thing that I noticed is, I don't 00 37t6 22 believe that Dave Rogers was the exclusive pilot for fence 23 Mr. Epstein. And so I had a concern — excuse me. I'm 3.0 24 sorry. eon 0 25 190 C037 I6 1 that covered the Set were not just the David Rogers' 2 flight logs, but there should be flight logs for other 003722 3 pilots which were not apparently being produced. eon 4 And so, In light of all that, what I was 00027 5 seeing was a -- a production of flight logs that was cony 6 Incomplete. And then I started to hear from Gents 7 Mr. Dershowitz that, well, these records prove ann 8 conclusively I couldn't have done that. And I knew to se 37 40 9 an absolute certainty, that the records were no 10 inconsistent and inaccurate; and for somebody who had roue 11 apparently carefully produced these records, to airy 12 represent that these conclusively prove that he wasn't aura 13 on the flights, seemed to me to be inaccurate mom 14 Information. fens 15 So that was -- those were the kinds of things son 16 16 I was thinking about. an 17 Q. Mr. Cassell, is it your testimony -- ran 18 MR. SIMPSON: Well, first of all, I move to Clint* 19 strike the nonresponsive portion of the answer. roam 20 DV MR. SIMPSON: co am 21 Q. Mr. Cassell, is it your testimony that you coma 22 have sufficient Information to conclude and allege that roue 23 Professor Dershowitz falsified documents and gave COM if 24 falsified documents toe prosecuting authority? con» 25 A. It Is my belief that Professor Dershowitz ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331.4400 I had a concern that the flight logs that — ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 own 1 cones 2 cons 3 10$20 4 0031 5 0019P 6 seam 7 00442 8 CO MO 9 ewe° 10 CO 4* 0 11 003452 12 COMM 13 muss 14 muss 15 031.03 16 03)005 17 axe 18 menu 19 Pan 20 023.20 21 wan 22 con 23 eon" 24 cons' 25 191 provided Incomplete production to law enforcement agencies. Q. Is it your testimony under oath that you have sufficient Information to allege that Professor Dershowitz Intentionally provided false information to a prosecuting authority? A. It Is my position that he provided Incomplete information to a prosecuting authority and Inaccurate information to a prosecuting authority. Now, as to precisely what his state of mind was when he was producing the incomplete and Inaccurate Information, that remains to be this -- you know, that was one of the topics that I was hoping could have been covered in -- in the depositions here in the last two days, but unfortunately, there wasn't sufficient time. Q. Let me ask it a different way. You -• you gave a tong answer in which you described reasons you apparently believe that these flight logs were not merely incomplete, but that someone had false — falsified them. And did I understand you correctly? MR. SCAROLA: Excuse me. The question that was asked was limited to the time period prior to December 30th. The answer that was given was limited to the time period prior to December 30th. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331.4400 10/20/2015 01:08:15 PM Page 188 to 191 of 335 10 of 46 sheets EFTA01116786 C01022 C03935 C0414 OD 20'40 00 94 00»Y 002844 00401 192 1 Are you now asking for an expansion of that 2 response to include information that's been 3 gathered since December 30th? 4 MR. SIMPSON: I will take your objection to 5 the form. 6 Can we have the question back? 7 (Thereupon, a portion of the record was read 8 by the reporter.) nen 9 MR. SCAROLA: And I object. The Question is vague and ambiguous because it fails to identify the time period about which you are inquiring. woos 12 BY MR. SIMPSON: O. Mr. Cassell, as you sit here today, are you wen 14 prepared, based on the Information you have available to CO 4021 15 you, to assert that Professor Dershowitz intentionally cio en 16 provided misleading or doctored documents to a coon 17 prosecuting authority? 00423? 18 A. So based on all the Information I have today? woe 19 Q. Yes. 10 40 40 20 A. Yes. 00 404 21 Q. What do you base -- what Is the basis for CO 4044 22 that conclusion, and Include information up until today? 00404 23 A. All right. So, obviously, that's an cows, 24 004051 25 44407 10 004009 11 O 401413 open-ended question. Q. I --just answer the question, please, as ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954)3314400 194 C04201 1 Another thing that happened during the C04110 2 deposition, and I will not repeat what was said in the 00014 3 deposition, because there was immediately an objection 034111 4 from Ms. McCawley, but there were two points in the 40019 5 deposition where Mr. Dershowitz made representations oar 6 about what a New York Attorney David Boles would say, 00422. 7 and I'm not going into any — nen 8 Q. I -- I just want to say if he starts talking m13s 9 about it — 0.4221 10 MS. McCAWLEY: No, -- I object to any 024232 11 reference — CO433 12 MR. SIMPSON: -- then I get to ask all the 00 QM 13 questions if he should say anything. 024244 14 MS. McCAWLEY: I think he's Just 40429$ 15 acknowledging that -- I'm sorry. I Mink he's 404237 16 acknowledging that that occurred. I Object to eon 17 any -- any discussion of any settlement moo 18 communications in the context of that privilege. incur 19 MR. SCAROLA: I don't intend to get into any 034244 20 settlement discussions. We are not going to non 21 repeat the substance of the objected-to 41.424 22 testimony. coos* 23 MR. SIMPSON: My point, I Just want it to be 14454 24 on notice -- 00 4244 25 MS. McCAWLEY: Yes. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 024095 03404 440511 0)4100 024102 C44105 004110 004114 004115 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 193 best you can. A. Sure. All right Well, let me just -- that's a lot -- there's a lot of things to get Into on that. Let's start with the events of the last two days, the deposition of Mr. Dershowitz, which in my mind demonstrates repeated false statements that were made by Mr. Dershowitz. Let's begin with the overarching point about 00 41 10 10 the deposition of the last two days. I've been co to 11 practicing law — law since about 1986. And In my 0041 x. 12 experience, I have never seen a more evasive effort to 00 41 30 13 avoid answering questions, and to essentially run out OD 41 14 14 the dock so that detailed questions could not be asked ocie xi 15 by my attorney. And I witnessed over the last two days, CIO 41 41 16 Mr. Dershowitz was asked a series of very simple ne 41 17 questions; where were you on this day; or what's the 00414 18 name; or what time, things like that, and instead of, C04149 19 you know, giving an — an immediate answer, he ended up 004 53 20 giving a very extended answer commonly punctuated with 004151 21 disparaging remarks that seemed to have nothing to do 004/40 22 with answering the question. 00 4001 23 So I drew the inference from that that nen 24 Mr. Dershowitz did not want to answer questions over the mow 25 last two days. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331.4400 195 004255 1 MR. SIMPSON: -- is If this witness starts woe 2 saying anything about his communications or why C0000 3 he -- he's coming to a conclusion, he's putting 02 .02 4 that forth as a basis, he has opened the door. moos 5 You can't put it forth and park and not let 02 4107 6 me ask for a the discussions. 00439I 7 MR. SCAROLA: You can -- you can proceed and 40 4210 8 you know not to include privileged — wow 9 THE WITNESS: Yes. C04113 10 MR. SCAROLA: — communications. CO 0 13 11 THE WITNESS: There was a newspaper that won 12 reported a Florida business newspaper that coast 13 promptly after Mr. Dershowitz said that Mr. Bores mom 14 had made certain representations, a Florida -- 00004 15 respected Florida business newspaper immediately mom 16 reported that David Boles had said, that was a soon 17 false statement. 1104231 18 And in light of that, I now had David Boles coon 19 saying that Mr. Dershowitz was making false wow 20 statements under oath during the -- the corns 21 deposition that occurred over the last two days. ream 22 In addition to that, I had -- again, during eat« 23 the deposition, I heard Mr. Dershowitz say that nom 24 Attorney Bob losefsberg had said that -- words to soon 25 the effect that he, losefsberg, did not believe ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 11 of 46 sheets Page 192 to 195 of 335 10/20/201S 01:08:15 PM EFTA01116787 198 198 004354 004316 004440 004440 004402 004404 03 44 OB 004409 14344 13 14144 17 10 al 4414 11 034421 12 03 44 30 13 00«N 14 0044 31 15 004434 16 03443? 17 OM* 18 wan 19 1:444.43 20 Demo. 21 4150 22 cons> 23 034459 24 CO 44 SI 25 v 2 as an attorney who had 3 represented Miss Roberts based on public 4 information, and I knew that that would be a 5 gross violation of Mr. Josefsberg's 6 attorney/client obligations. And as a result of 7 that, it seemed to me that, once again, 8 Mr. Dershowitz was giving false Information under 9 oath in an effort to exculpate Nmself from the sex trafficking that he had been Involved with. In addition to that, I learned during the deposition on Thursday that it had, quote, not crossed my mind, close quote -- I believe that's a direct quote from Mr. Dershowitz -- to record a conversation with a woman allegedly named Rebecca who had allegedly made certain statements. That was on Thusday. And then yesterday, Friday, I learned that Mr. Dershowitz, not only had it crossed his mind to make a recording, he had, in fact, made such a recording; and in fact, had it transcribed; and in fact, turned it over to his attorneys. So, once again, I had what appeared to be a false statement under oath by Mr. DeS110Wit2 In an attempt to exculpate himself from the -- the sex ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 00402 1 You know, I also have -- I would like to son 2 refresh my recollection and If -- if counsel -- 044410 3 that's 0044110 4 MR. SCAROLA: You can refresh your co.,', 5 recollection on anything you need to. may 6 THE WITNESS: All right. I'd like to refresh vin it 7 my recollection by looking at -- wen 8 MR. SIMPSON: Actually, I -- I object to this m«n 9 answer as nonresponsive. I haven't heard Hum 10 anything about flight logs once. Han 11 MR. SCARpIA: You can continue. N«33 12 THE WITNESS: These -- you know, these all 90 ea MST 13 to the statements. 00602/ 14 BY MR. SIMPSON: oven 15 Q. You're looking at a document? ton 16 A. Yeah. Let's mark it as an exhibit if you'd 034432 17 like. This Is a memory aid to me. 004434 18 Q. Did you prepare It? can 19 A. Yes, I did. All right. Let's see. At page CO 44 42 20 119 of a rough transcript that I saw prepared of 0..c« 21 Thursdays testimon Mr. Dershowitz was asked. Quote: masa 22 You know of the only person 114 44 12 23 who has sworn under oath that you were present at 00 411$ 24 Jeffrey Epstein's Palm Beach home with young girls, coatio 25 right? Answer: No. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 197 004303 1 trafficking that we -- we have evidence he has CO 44 03 2 been Involved with. mum 3 The false statements or certainly misleading 0044 12 4 statements continue. I suppose, some of these CO 44 14 5 could be a matter of judgment. The -- they raise eon,. 6 grave concern to me. tom is 7 One of them was that we had propounded an 03420 8 interrogatory requesting the basis f 034473 9 Mr. Dershowitz's statements ma 034430 10 had a criminal record. And he s mom 11 she's admitted that she had sex with various 00•4 17 12 people, so that renders her a criminal, and tee a. 13 something along those lines, which I didn't think 11.04336 14 was very accurate. wen 15 But in any event, that was the answer he fonts 16 gave. And then I teamed during the deposition 0044 17 in the last two days, that Mr. Dershowitz had 0041 18 he says shows that 004540 19 money from a 4040 SO 20 restaurant and had been criminally charged with own 21 that. mast 22 That was not produced to us during discovery, oasis. 23 even though it would have been obviously 004936 24 relevant, and it was directly called for in the oust 25 discovery that we were provided with. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331.4400 004702 1 004744 2 01107 3 0011 ss 4 CO ON 5 GI 4147 6 mom 7 199 That seemed to me to be false or at the very least misleading testimony given that Mr. Dershowltz knew that Juan Alessi, among potentially other people, had identified him as having been in the presence of Jeffrey Epstein and young girls at the Florida mansion and, indeed, had identified a photograph of Virginia Roberts. O44721 8 At page 164 of the transcript, Mr. Dershowitz Nan 9 was asked, quote: All of the manifests that have been 034224 10 produced In this litigation, the ones that you say to 47 al 11 corroborate your testimony and exonerate you, NITS 12 demonstrate that you never flew on Jeffrey Epstein's CO Or 13 plane in the company of your wife, correct? Answer: 004I 14 No, that's not true. I don't know that. coon 15 And, again, in the context of this litigation CO 47 40 16 where the flight logs have been, as this question that to.,, 17 I'm answering tends to show, are so central for woo 18 Mr. Dershowltz to testify under oath that he didn't know Ham 19 whether his wife was depicted on the flight log, struck Nose 20 me as, at the very least, misleading information, but I Now 21 concluded in my opinion was actually deliberately false 004441 22 information, particularly, given this litigation where 004444 23 he has produced, not only his own personal travel • 24 record, but all of his wife's travel records for the Na'.26 relevant period of time. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 10/20/2015 01:08:15 PM Page 196 to 199 of 335 12 of 46 sheets EFTA01116788 200 00 4015 I SO I thought that was, again, a deliberate OC 48'1 2 false statement under oath designed to exculpate him 00411 /2 3 from his criminal involvement in this international sex CO 41 01 4 trafficking ring. CO .4.17 5 At another point in the transcript, he was 0341/3 6 asked, quote, -- no, I'm sorry. He stated, quote: I GOO 33 7 challenge you to find any statement where I said I have Con 35 8 never traveled outside the presence of my wife, close 1041A 9 quote, representing that there would be no such eon 47 10 statement there, when, in fact, I'm aware of an American *ono 11 Lawyer quotation attributed to him from January 15th, ens., 12 2015, quote: I've been married to the same woman for 28 00146: 13 years. She goes with me everywhere, close quote. And, cc 44 v. 14 again, you know, this — I understand sometimes people ox4is, 15 may go away from their wife, but the American Lawyer 13C 4211• 16 was, obviously, on January 15th, 20 1 5, asking about: 23 453. 17 Well, have you been outside the presence of your wife in CO 4201 18 situations where you might have interacted with Virginia 03 4211 19 Roberts? And that was the answer that he gave to the • 20 American Lawyer. ▪ 43 11 21 And based on -- on my review of the flight te 22 logs, I thought that was, again, a deliberate effort to con X 23 obscure and try to exculpate himself from his to 1131 24 involvement in this international sex trafficking ring. 004199 25 The — he also said yesterday: Nobody knows ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954)331-4400 202 logs. And could refresh my recollection here by o: 9a so.s. 2 looking at, I think it's docket entry 291 of our 1235041 3 pleading that we presented on January 21st to 093011 4 Judge Marra where we provided specific itemized examples co son 5 of inconsistencies between the Dave Rogers' flight log ten 6 and the — again, I'll call it, the Alan Dershowitz eosin 7 flight log, which was a selected presentation of flight cosito 8 log information. 003104 9 And when you see those inconsistencies, it becomes very hard to believe that all of the Information oasi in 11 that was provided in those flight logs was accurate. So osiii 12 when I take all of that information, put it together, I Donn 13 believe that there's sufficient — I have a sufficient 02.11.11 14 basis for believing at this point in time, that sense 15 Mr. Dershowitz has, indeed, provided inaccurate costa 16 information to — to law enforcement agencies, or at a 0051:25 17 minimum has provided — has produced inaccurate rosin 18 information through circumstances beyond his control. 00 11':12 19 But when he continually represents that the test s 20 information is accurate and exonerates him, I believe cony 21 that that Is a deliberately false statement. 005145 22 MR. SIMPSON: Move to strike the answer onto 23 the nonresponsive portion of the answer. /044 24 MR. SCAROLA: Which portion is that? coo., 25 MR. SIMPSON: 99 percent of it. I think at ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954)331-4400 005902 10 201 0241 u 1 about Prince Andrew and Virginia, except for the two of cons 2 them. And, again, I thought that was at a minimum, CO.," 3 deliberately mis -- misleading information and more C04941 4 likely deliberately false information, because 00 4141 5 Mr. Dershowitz was aware of the photograph and had long 0049 .7 6 been aware of the photograph that shows Prince Andrew eon% 7 with his arm aroun ing next to a man 8 beaming Glenn Max Ived in this LOOM 9 international sex trafficking organization. won 10 And in the circumstances of that photograph, own 11 it seems quite likely that the photographer who took 00500. 12 that picture was the head of the international sex sown 13 trafficking ring, Jeffrey Epstein. And so for him to town 14 say that only two people knew what went on was, again, re se .4 15 deliberately false information, because I know he is the sow', 16 attorney for Jeffrey Epstein, and he could have asserted 015022 17 attorney/client privilege over that, said, I can't get co ma 18 into my communications with my client about what he was 011022 19 doing with Prince Andrew. DOWN 20 But instead he said, no ono knows what C01021 21 happened, other than those two people In circumstances pra 30 31 22 where it was quite clear that there would have been so ws 23 others who would have been aware of that. 03 WM 24 Now, the question is: Why do I think the -- ono). 25 the -- you know, there are inaccuracies in the flight ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 C05160 1 51.12 2 costa 3 cosi ss 4 005117 5 COM.) 6 03 OP 7 CO St03 8 nom 9 0055“ 10 tuss le 11 <ono 12 cows 13 nun 14 • 1730 15 Dawn 16 won 17 01120/ 18 0,1241 19 as aa 20 wens 21 sun 22 eta% 23 cease 24 fie 1300 25 203 the end, we got to the flight logs. move to strike the nonresponsive portion. BY MR. SIMPSON: O. Mr. Cassell, you came here today looking for an opportunity to give that statement; did you net? A. If it was relevant to an answer I was giving, yes. Q. The answer to my question is, yes, you came here today looking for a question to which you could respond with that prepared statement? A. I was prepared to give that — I anticipated that a very good attorney for Mr. Dershowitz might ask a question where that would be relevant. And if that question were asked and I was given the opportunity to make that statement, I wanted to be prepared to give it In the most accurate way that I could. MR. SIMPSON: I would like the reporter to mark as Exhibit -- are we up to 4 -- Exhibit 4, the document that Mr. Cassell was referring to. I'll let the reporter do that. THE WITNESS: Okay. (CaSSell'S1.13. Exhibit NO. 4 - document produced by the witness was marked for identification.) MR. SIMPSON: I just want to make that part of the record. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954)331-4400 13 of 46 sheets Page 200 to 203 of 335 10/20/2015 01:08:15 PM EFTA01116789 00003 005302 1 2 204 BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. Before Wednesday of this week, you had none 001307 3 of the information that you just described about WOW 4 Professor Dershowitz's testimony, correct? 006212 5 A. Correct. 06112 6 Q. I'm trying to look at my notes here of your won 7 long answer, but one thing you Indicated that -- was the 0330 8 fact that Professor Dershowitz gave long answers Is 00 034 9 somehow indicative of false answers or perjury -- COOS 10 coon. 11 mom 12 1130 13 00040 14 ono 15 toss./ 16 cosio 17 ono 18 oosiu 19 muss 20 003 6, 21 NSW 22 gown 23 macs 24 man 25 MR. SCAROLA: That Is -- BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. -- is that right? MR. SCAROLA: That Is an absolute mischaracterization of the statement that Professor Cassell made. He did not refer to the length of the answers, but rather their nonresponsiveness. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. Let me -- let me ask a different question. Go back to the flight logs themselves. A. Okay. Q. My initial question that got us going down this line was: Isn't it true that the flight logs themselves support Professor Derchow,tr' ny that he was never on a plane face ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 206 06106 1 perfectly clear. 006601 2 BY MR. SIMPSON: 006106 3 Q. My question, Mr. Cassell, is: You reviewed oissii 4 the flight logs, correct? &sun 5 A. Correct. Q. You reviewed them in some detail, correct? A. Correct. Q. Is there any entry on those flight lines 33 C016 1? 9 logs that you read as putting Professor Dershowitz and 02021 10 Miss Roberts on the same plane? 03023 11 A. No. 003624 12 Q. And so your testimony about questions about coups 13 the completeness and accuracy of those flight logs goes to whether the logs are -- let me rephrase that. 00601 15 The answer that you gave about your question 00510 16 as -- your views as to the completeness of the flight 001 ./ 17 logs and whether they may have been changed in some rout) 18 ways, goes to whether those logs are conclusive, not 0040 19 whether they, in fact, support Professor Dershowitz's 00414 20 testimony that he was not on a plane with Virginia or.isci 21 Roberts? 001003 22 MR. SCAROLA: I'm going to object to the form costa 23 of the question as vague and ambiguous. I don't micro 24 understand it. otino, 25 THE WITNESS: And I won't give a long answer, ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 207 00100 1 but I -- I think, as I previously indicated, you ono 2 can't just look at the face of these documents 03014 3 without -- with -- you know, against the context emir 4 of an international sex trafficking ring that's 351 5 trying to cover up what it's doing. You can't tome, 6 just look and documents and assume that they are sown 7 100 percent accurate without that -- having that 0000 8 context in mind. emir 9 BY MR. SIMPSON: come 10 Q. And so am I right, that tows 11 flight logs, there's nothing showin 0640 12 and Professor Dershowltz on the own 13 A. That's correct. camas 14 Q. And -- go on. insiso 15 And so do 1 understand correctly that your C0 34 57 16 position is that the flight logs may not be complete or 00 5201 17 may have been changed, but you do not dispute, that on 00.10 18 their face, they support Professor Dershowitz's 00 62 62 19 testimony? ossi 20 MR. SCAROLA: Objection. outs 21 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. Gas? to 22 MR. SCAROLA: Compound. 00014 23 THE WITNESS: Could you just aggregate that? out. 24 BY MR. SIMPSON: 00710 25 Q. You follow the objections very well. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 000133 14 0014 12 1 of the flight logs support that proposition? 0114 20 2 A. The face of the flight logs for the relevant 00140 3 period of time, we can call it the hot period of time or 0040 4 whatever you want, did not reveal the presence of 005.22 5 Mr. Dershowitz on those flights, yes. 00140 6 Q. Okay. So during the period -- well, 00102 7 actually, there's no flight log that shows Virginia 12114 31 8 Roberts and Professor Dershowitz on the same airplane, CO 012, 9 correct? CO $07 10 A. That's my understanding, yes. roust 11 coun 12 MR. SCAROLA: By name. You're -- you're 03141 13 MS. McCAWLEY: And It -- cos.° 14 MR. SCAROLA: -- asking whether she was there or.40 15 Identified by name? 0140 16 BY MR. SIMPSON: 01412 17 Q. To your knowledge, Isn't it correct that 03 00 18 there is no flight log that's been produced in this case eons. 19 Professor Dershowitz and min 20 me plane, as you read the cams. 21 ig og. inn 22 MR. SCAROLA: I'm sorry. Are you asking mum 23 whether those same names appear on the flight log together? mum 25 MR. SIMPSON: My question, I Chink, is ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331.4400 205 015See 24 [past, 6 00414 7 onein 8 10/20/2015 01:08:15 PM Page 204 to 207 of 335 14 of 46 sheets EFTA01116790 208 00sn 1 A. I was thinking of that as well. COO n 2 BY MR. SIMPSON: ton 3 Q. Let me soy yi 4 A. I wasn't -- so rn 5 Q. Let me -- aim 6 A. -- following their answer. 0047 n 23 7 Q. Let me -- let me Just ask a different 011717 8 question. 00 67 22 9 A. Sure. Thanks. con, 10 Q. You testified that you have -- at some wins 11 length, about why you question the accuracy of the an.. 12 flight logs, correct? ono 13 A. Correct. Nun 14 Q. But I may be redundant, but you don't Huss 15 question that what they show on their face supports testa 16 Professor Dershowitz's testimony -- testa 17 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. costa 18 BY MR. SIMPSON: 00 6740 19 Q. -- that he was not on a plane with Virginia glob 20 Roberts? oats 21 A. The you know, the — the sex trafficking wars 22 ring run by Jeffrey Epstein has produced Epstein flight tabu. 23 how that -- that Dershowitz and 405644 24 not on the plane, so... tosses 25 er to my question is, yes? ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331.4400 210 wino 1 A. I recall his testimony to that effect, yes. Hint 2 Q. And you testified that no support for that or • vi 3 had been produced in discovery; Is that correct? iota* 4 A. That's my understanding, yes. owe 5 Q. Isn't it true that in Mr. Alessi's on 6 deposition, he describes that under oath and says that 04%23 7 it happened? 06 SI 24 8 k I don't have a recollection of criminal 0050 21 9 charges having been discussed in the Alessi deposition. 613431 10 Q. Is it -- well, let me -- let me ask you: Is vises. 11 it your testimony that you understood that, in fact, resew 12 Miss Roberts had been accused of stealing money from her 04 0« 13 employer? CO 54 4? 14 MS. McCAWLEY: I'm going to object to the 1•41 15 extent it gets into any conversations that you 40440 16 had with Virginia on any of these issues. wiry 17 THE WITNESS: Yeah, I'm trying to -- if your cassis 18 question is about the Alessi depo, !don't -- eosin 19 don't immediately recall him discussing -- mow' 20 discussing them. 01 on> 21 BY MR. SIMPSON: nano. 22 Q. If I represent to you that Mr. Alessi, in his el OW 23 deposition, referred to a police report and an arrest of elan 24 Miss Roberts, do you have any reason to question that? Quell 25 MR. SCAROLA: Could we could we pull out ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331.4400 209 00 SI CO 1 MR. SCAROLA: I'm sorry. 062.404 2 THE WITNESS: Which question now? 066414 3 MR. SIMPSON: The question you just -- could cos„ 4 you read back my -- my question and the answer? nu 5 BY MR. SIMPSON: 4044 31 6 Q. Let me ask it again. nn 7 A. Okay. COM 3, 8 Q. That's fine. WYE 33 9 A. I mean, I thought I was - cow), 10 MR. SCAROLA: There's no question pending. ono>. 11 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry. 001434 12 BY MR. SIMPSON: 31 13 Q. What were you about to say? aura 14 A. I was about to say that the records that they coon 15 produced — I'm -- I'm sorry... 001442 16 Q. The records -- the records that were 006442 17 produced -- cow« 18 A. On -- on their face I cannot lye you a owe 19 flight log that ha Alan Dershowltz 024640 20 sitting next to each other, yes. seas, 21 Q. And you also -- you also testified a moment re SO 5. 22 ago that Professor Dershowitz in his testimony in the Gouty 23 last couple of days, had testified tha re Se 03 24 had been arrested for stealing cash; mow 25 you recall that? ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 010114 1 014016 2 014017 3 010414 4 Of 40 IQ 5 410021 6 414021 7 view 8 >6 9 211 the deposition? And if you have got a reference in the deposition, lets take a look at it. MR. SIMPSON: I'm just asking for his recollection right now. The document win speak for itself. But I want to -- MR. SCAROLA: Yes, it will. MR. SIMPSON: He -- he made a very serious accusation. I would like to get an answer to my question. Does he recall whether, in that sun, 10 deposition that all the parties in this case 010020 11 have, Mr. Alessi said under oath, that she had o, 0047 12 been arrested and charged with stealing from her 0103413 employer. emu 14 THE WITNESS: When you -- the question built town 15 in a serious accusation, the -- the -- the -- the orsin 16 statement I was making is that we had propounded 014042 17 an interrogatory to Mr. Dershovdtz saying: mesa 18 what's the basis for your assertion that 014045 19 Miss Roberts had a criminal record? And that e. ma 20 answer didn't refer to an Alessi depo. If it 21 this is one of the problems that I'm having. 010243 22 When -- when -- you know, when you come into el ease 23 a deposition, both sides are supposed to turn Titan 24 everything over. And then if I get a question WOO 25 about, well, what if -- you know, were relying ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954)331-4400 15 of 46 sheets Page 208 to 211 of 335 10/20/2015 01:08:15 PM EFTA01116791 010101 010101 010103 01010/ 010110 01 01 11 010111 01 Ot '2 010110 not' 10 01:0123 11 01 0123 12 01,0123 13 OW 24 14 0101 25 15 °iv 24 16 0101 24 17 0101 21 18 0101 32 19 cows 20 010141 21 0101 44 22 *ono 23 010140 24 mow 25 2 3 4 5 MR. SIMPSON: I move -- I move to strike as 6 nonresponsive. 7 BY MR. SIMPSON: 8 Q. My question went to whether -- let me back 9 up. If -- if I'm -- unless I misunderstood you -- MR. SCAROLA: The question was: Did he recall the contents -- MR. SIMPSON: I'm asking the question. MR. SCAROLA: -- of the Alessi deposition. MR. SIMPSON: I'm withdrawing it. I will ask a new question. MR. SCAROLA: Okay. Thank you. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. I understood you in your -- the long answer that you gave a while ago to suggest that Professor Dershowitz had either testified falsely or failed to provide relevant information on which he was basing his testimony about Miss Roberts's arrest; is that right? A. Yes. Q. And that assertion would be incorrect if there's a deposition in this case that all the parties ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 212 on this piece of the Alessi depo and It's not In the answers to Interrogatories, it's hard for me to -- to give an answer to that. So -- so that's the -- that's the concern I have. 213 morn 1 have that include that Information? a, 0146 2 MR. SCAROLA: Mr. Simpson, there was an on 3 express reference to an answer to interrogatory, moo 4 and the absence of any reference to an arrest for 010105 5 theft in your client's sworn answer to mono 6 interrogatory. That's -- el 02 00 7 MR. SIMPSON: We -- we -- 0102 11 8 MR. SCAROLA: -- exactly what the testimony 01 02 12 9 was. MR. SIMPSON: If you object to the form, alma 11 please just object to the form. I think it's a ohms 12 proper question -- urea 13 MR. SCAROLA: I -- I object " 010212 14 MR. SIMPSON: -- in our discovery response. ones 15 MR. SCAROLA: -- I object to your °Ina 16 misrepresentation of the earlier testimony. I'm 01 02 21 17 sure it was not intentional, and that's why I'm outs 18 calling It to your attention so that we don't go 010227 19 down a rabbit trail. 01.02,3 20 MR. SIMPSON: I'm not going down any rabbit con 21 trail. I'm really -- objection to the form will 01.0231 22 preserve it. mien 23 BY MR. SIMPSON: 01W3? 24 Q. My question is whether you were aware at the time that Professor Dershowitz testified that, in fact, ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 0102 0 10 010246 25 010246 030224 01021/7 onto mom morn 010305 01 0330 0103 15 214 1 Mr. Alessi had also testified previously about the 2 arrest of Miss Roberts for stealing from her employer? 3 A. I didn't recall that. If that's in there, 4 you're -- you're making a representation, and I know 5 you're a fine lawyer, so I'll accept your 6 representation. 7 I didn't recall that when he was testifying 8 a -- a day or two ago on that subject. 9 MR. SCAROLA: We have been going for about an woo 10 hour. Is It time to take a break? Is that 01021, 11 convenient for you? oin 12 MR. SIMPSON: We can take a break now. 010321 13 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are going off the video wean 14 record, 9:35 a.m. (Thereupon, a recess was taken.) maul 16 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are back on the video record, 9:47 a.m. 01 MO 18 THE WITNESS: I need to take two minutes, if I may, and just supplement the long answer that I gave about the series of things. ei ion 21 By looking over my checklist, I noticed that oi on 22 item 5 of the 12 items was not given during my al no 23 testimony. I'm -- oi no 24 BY MR. SIMPSON: 01 13 44 25 Q. I don't -- I'm not going to ask about item 5. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 oi an 1 215 It's in the record as part of your -- your -- your -- 011ie 2 A. i would like to just supplement -- DI Isse 3 MR. SCAROLA: That's fine. Mars fine. If plan 4 you don't want to hear it, that's okay. arise, 5 THE WITNESS: I'd like -- 011133 6 MR. SCAROLA: Just as long as it's noted that 01 15 34 7 there was an inadvertent omission. 011410 8 THE WITNESS: Yeah. alma 9 BY MR. SIMPSON: of ism 10 Q. As part of -- I'm going to go back actually 0 not 11 to -- o nu 12 A. Sure. 0114.02 13 Q. -- the questions I was asking. One question 01 1640 14 about the -- the flight logs again. see 15 A. Okay. of wc. 16 Q. It's true, is it not, that you have no 0. 412 17 personal knowledge as to whether Professor Dershowitz or ova 15 18 some other member of Jeffrey Epstein's defense team 01 0121 19 prepared those logs for production to the government? anon 20 A. I don't have personal knowledge of of o, an 21 that, that's right. 0„020 22 Q. And you would agree, would you not, that it's on 33 23 the duty of a defense counsel to represent a client el an 24 zealously within the bounds of the law, correct? 01 10 40 25 A. Correct. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 01 s0, 15 01 IS 74 17 01 ISM 19 011134 20 10/20/2015 01:08:15 PM Page 212 to 215 of 335 16 or 46 sheets EFTA01116792 216 218 01 101 1 Q. In fact, I think you testified yesterday Li wit 2 about your duty with respect to Miss Roberts along those x1.47 3 lines, correct? et ins 4 A. That's right. 01,11 40 5 Q. And so with respect to Professor Dershowites 0111132 6 representation of Jeffrey Epstein, he would have been 20 ,07 7 acting unetNcally if he didn't attempt to negotiate the 01 17 00 8 best resolution for his client that he could, consistent ot 0c, 9 with the law; Is that correct? 01 1701 10 A. Right. Consistent with the law, yes. os Ins 11 Q. And so you wouldn't -- 0 009 12 A. I'm sorry. Let me just -- consistent with 01 1711 13 the law and with the ethical obligations of attorneys. oi 1714 14 Attorneys cannot make, for example, false ours 15 representations when they are negotiating those kinds of et ir le 16 things. 01 1710 17 Q. Right. The duty as a defense counsel, a rid 18 Professor Dershowitz's duty was to attempt to obtain the 01 1777 19 best resolution he could for Jeffrey Epstein consistent with the law and legal ethics, correct? A. That's correct. Q. And, in fact, If he had not done that, he would have been acting unethically, correct? A. That's correct. Q. And would you agree that it would be ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331.4400 01 101 20 41 17 14 21 01 17 34 22 1,214 23 01 17 41 24 01.1741 25 0000 1 MS. McCAWLEY: The location is fine. el wt. 2 THE WITNESS: The location, once awed 3 personally -- once here In Florida, and then in 01 1125 4 my office in -- while in Salt Lake Oty. mini 5 BY MR. SIMPSON: pin= 6 Q. And are you able to place in time when you mo 7 reviewed these portions of the police report, other than before December 30th of 2014/ al UM 9 A. Not precisely, no. Q. And do I understand correctly from your testimony yesterday that that police report ts one of the things you relied on to support making the allegations against Professor Dershowitz that are included in the joinder motion? A. That's right. Q. It's also true, is It not, that that police 01 2001 17 report includes an Interview with an adult woman who was 012001 18 retained to provide massages at Jeffrey Epstein's 01x11 19 residence for guests, among others; Isn't that correct? owl. 20 A. I believe that's coned. 01 20111 21 Q. And based on that, is It your testimony that 01 2020 22 it's fair to presume that a reference that a guest got a 012024 23 massage is a code word for abusing a minor sexually? moil 24 MR. SCAROLA: I'm sorry. Are you -- are you 01 200 25 isolating -- ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 411.]3 8 011440 10 01 1042 11 a 1047 12 01 101 13 O1 1014 14 011.1 15 01 IOU 16 01 17 411 1 01 1751 2 01 OM 3 011701 4 alum 5 01 IOW 6 ovum 7 o51401 8 01 VI 14 9 01 10 22 10 Dian 11 Dion 12 01 1131 13 01 102 14 o. Tess 15 01 10 41 16 217 inappropriate, totally inappropriate, to infer anything negative about an attorney because the attorney represented someone accused of heinous crimes? A. Just the fact of representation alone? CL Yes. A. Yeah, that's right. Sure, of course, everyone is entitled to a defense. Q. As -- before December 30th of 2014, had you reviewed the Palm Beach Police report? A. Portions of it, yes. O. Had you reviewed the entire report? A. I think I reviewed most of It, but I don't think I've gone through It page by page. Q. When did you do that? A. Well, let's see. Before December 30th, 2014, Brad and I filed the case in about July 2008, so it was Ginn 17 about a six-year period of time, and I remember I'd been 0%100 18 to Florida a couple of times on this case, once in 2010 0000 19 and I think another a year or two later. And I 01 10 07 20 remember, at least on one of those times, reviewing the ri no, 21 report here with -- I don't know If I can... • n is 22 MS. McCAWLEY: Yeah. I wouldn't go into aria 23 anything. 11111115 24 THE WITNESS: To the -- right. So we just -- 9I UM 25 we just want to know -- ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331.4400 01 200 O1 20 34 01 20 le 01 20 14 01 20 14 012011 000 10 219 1 MR. SIMPSON: I don't -- I don't want a 2 speech, Mr. Scarola. If you object to the form, 3 object to the form, and I -- If It's not a proper 4 question -- 5 MR. SCAROLA: I want a clarification of the 6 question, please. Are you isolating ordy that 7 piece - 012039 B MR. SIMPSON: I -- the question -- MR. SCAROLA: -- of information? MR. SIMPSON: I'm -- I am asking a question that's perfectly clear. If you think it's objectionable, it won't -- it will stand. MR. SCAROLA: I'm going to object on the basis that it is vague and ambiguous. It Is unclear whether you're asking for him -- MR. SIMPSON: Please don't coach the witness. MR. SCAROLA: -- to isolate -- to isolate his focus to that single piece of evidence. MR. SIMPSON: I object on the coaching of the 01 /I 01 20 witness. at nol 21 BY MR. SIMPSON: 012102 22 Q. My question Is: Is it reasonable, 41 2103 23 considering that the police report on Its face shows our it 24 evidence -- let me back this up. Ask another question MI 10 25 to you. 01 20 41 9 012042 10 012045 11 01200 12 0100 13 012050 14 00062 15 011056 16 O12000 17 D es. 18 01 100 19 ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 17 of 46 sheets Page 216 to 219 of 335 10/20/2015 01:08:15 PM EFTA01116793 220 012110 1 Are you aware that the police report reflects 012171 2 that the woman I referred to who was hired to give ei a 3 massages, told them that she never touched anyone e12126 4 inappropriately? arts 5 A. I think that there are — there is ei nu 6 information along those lines in the police report, yes. 012114 7 Q. Okay. And so do you acknowledge that the 01211/ 8 police report, on Its face, reflects both reports of mail 9 massages that Involved improper sexual contact -- 012145 10 contact and massages that were perfectly legitimate? 012,00 11 A. Yes, but not in the same proportion. 012154 12 Q. My question wasn't proportion. The the DI 21S1 13 report on Its face, you understood, reflected that there anal 14 were massages given at Mr. Epstein's residence that were 012200 15 perfectly legitimate? eine 16 A. Some — Novas basically a few isolated 017711 17 examples from what I could see. 1112714 18 Q. So you would characterize what was said in the police report as "a few isolated examples'? 012721 20 A. Well, given the backdrop that they had - 01222$ 21 Q. No. My Question -- it's a yes or no aims 22 Question. Is that how you would characterize it? 022771 23 MR. SCAROLA: Excuse me. The witness is not *inn 24 confined to answering yes or no, if yes or no 01071 25 would be misleading. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (854)331.4400 111 22 14 19 012211 11 012401 12 012071 13 012414 14 012401 15 ernes 16 012401 17 012401 18 017404 19 0124 „ 20 01 24 14 21 013411 22 01241. 23 0124n 24 }a 25 person? elms 012131 012140 012140 017442 012344 017341 017254 017314 222 1 A. That sounds accurate with the information I 2 have, yes, she doesn't sound like she would fit his 3 type. 4 Q. And so do you agree with me then -- 5 A. And she's over the age of 18, which is 6 another reason why wouldn't fit his type, so... 7 Q. But you acknowledge that -- that this 8 woman -- that the police report reflects a woman over -- 9 well over the age of 18, being hired to give perfectly a as? 10 legitimate massages, correct? A. yeah. That was cover for the sex trafficking that was going on. Q. Okay. So you're now -- does the police report say "it was cover" -- A. That was — Q. -- "(or the sex trafficking"? A. That was my conclusion when I reviewed the materials. Q. Okay. So your Inclusion is that a fair-minded reader of the police report would come to that conclusion? A. December 30th of 2014, knowing what we know now, yes. Do you consider yourself a very suspicious ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954)331-4400 221 017233 1 BY MR. SIMPSON: CH 2233 2 Q. It's a different position than was taken ai 3S 3 previously, but -- OM/ 4 A. Imam, I was just going to give one 1117234 5 sentence, and the one sentence would be, in the context 7241 6 of this whole police report where they had 24, 0,7241 7 approximately, minor girls who were -- who were being 00 2241 8 sexually abused, the references to legitimate massages I 01 2261 9 would view as Isolated. sins, 10 Q. So you're coming to the conclusion, looking 017261 11 at the police report, that they are isolated; is that 0222H 12 right? tuns, 13 A. Yes. 012301 14 Q. And do you think a fair-minded reader of the 017304 15 police report would reach that conclusion? 012303 16 A. Absolutely. 01230/ 17 Q. And were you aware that the police report, to 012312 18 give a bit more detail, reflected that a woman who was an 19 described as having tattoos was hired to give 012317 20 deep-tissue Swedish massages. Do YOU recall that being 012320 21 in the -- in the police report? 011327 22 A. Something along those lines, yes. 012321 23 Q. And she also -- that woman also told the 017324 24 police that the was not Jeffrey Epstein's type, that she tun,, 25 wasn't thin, had tattoos, didn't fit his type? ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 223 o.24rs 1 A. No. *Inn 2 Q. Do you consider yourself a con ger/a -- having 011421 3 a conspiratorial view? 012431 4 A. Absolutely not. Q. Do you consider yourself a crusader? A. Well, crusader for justice, I would say, yes. Q. If -- let me put it this way: In your view, is evidence that a person, any person, any guest at Mr. Epstein's house had a massage, evidence that that person engaged in criminal sexual conduct, contact with minors, because of the fact of having a massage? 011513 12 A. You'd have to look at the context. eine 13 Q. On its own, is it any evidence -- doesn't 0125 if 14 it -- is it any evidence at all, in your view? 012501 15 A. It would be some evidence, yes. eina 16 Q. Notwithstanding that the report, on Its face, 011126 17 reflects both legitimate and illegitimate massages? oi is* 18 A. The report on its face, let's be clear, Ginn 19 reflects a lot of illegitimate sag massages and a °Inn 20 sporadic or isolated, you know, legitimate massages. So Din as 21 the fact that somebody gets a massage in that context, 01 2$42 22 I -- I think is — is — raises, you know, the concerns 012541 23 we have been talking about. es no 24 Q. Did you, before December 30th of 2014, 012403 25 yourself personally, review what I think you referred to ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 012414 5 es* 6 vio 7 022441 8 6,2454 9 012301 10 012501 11 10/20/2015 01:08:15 PM Page 220 to 223 of 335 18 of 46 sheets EFTA01116794 224 226 coma 1 062612 2 address book of Mr. Epstein? no 3 A. Pieces of it, yes. unto 4 Q. Did you review the entire document? et 241I 5 A. No. 012621 6 Q. Did I understand yesterday that you moon 7 testified -- did I understand correctly yesterday, that 012626 8 you testified that the fact that names were circled to n33 9 Indicated that those persons likely engaged in illegal 01 70 31 10 sexual contact with minors? 012641 11 A. My — my impression is the names that were 017044 12 circled were circled by Alfredo Rodriguez when he was oroon 13 busted by the FBI for involvement, and he was asked to 017661 14 identify those who would have information about the sex ones. 15 trafficking organization. And my — based on all the crass 16 evidence I have, I believe the names that were circled orno, 17 were those who would have that kind of Information. osnre 18 Q. So is it your testimony that if the name is 017701 19 circled, it indicates that they have information, or nu 20 that they are criminals? 012702 21 A. That they would have information about the cilviz 22 sex trafficking organization, and that would probably 271$ 23 mean that they were part of the organization. It may AV IS 24 mean that they were witnesses to what the organization 0127e 25 was doing. In your testimony yesterday as the holy grail, an ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331.4400 AMA 1 Q. Would It be a reasonable Inference, or a 000 2 possible reasonable inference to draw, that 01223. 3 Mr. Rodriguez was trying to highlight people who would ed no 4 be of Interest to the Press for purposes of selling the el a as 5 book? • 0. 6 A. No, because he was not talking to the Press. in no 7 He was talking to an FBI agent who had busted him for 01 2110 8 criminal activity. And so I was assuming that what he 012664 9 was trying to do, as many criminals do when they are 012466 10 apprehended, was give information to law enforcement or nor 11 agency that would be helpful so that they can catch 0 ono 12 other "bigger fishes" Is the phrase that's sometimes 017IA) 13 used, so that the little fish would would get off or 012,0) 14 get a cooperation deal from the law enforcement agency. 012011 15 He was talking -- let's be clear. He was tan,. 16 talking to somebody he understood was an FBI agent at or 017 17 the time, and so that was the context of the 000 18 conversation. 017019 19 Q. Do you have any personal knowledge that it's Oi 2022 20 in the context of talking to the FBI that Mr. Rodriguez 012026 21 circled those names? *In ts 22 A. I have reviewed — I know I could refresh my oi 0X. 23 recollection here, but there's an FBI 302, a report of ol n33 24 interview of the circumstances surrounding el ?In 25 Mr. Rodriguez's arrest and I believe I reviewed that ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 017036 227 302. DI 10 31 2 Q. Do you know whether the FBI, at any point, 01704/ 3 contacted Professor Dershowitz to discuss any evidence 010)53 4 he might have after his name was circled on this 011946 5 document? 012,67 6 A. I don't have personal knowledge of what the 012646 7 FBI did to follow up after that. 01)001 8 Q. Okay. One of the names that's circled in the 013003 9 book is Courtney Love. Do you know who she is? taxes 10 • 3on 11 O1x10 12 611019 13 01)011 14 ones 15 011014 16 • 3027 17 O13032 18 01x30 19 ▪ )036 20 ▪ ve 21 013043 22 011040 23 1111040 24 011042 25 225 012120 1 But they would have information that the FBI, 012/24 2 among other law enforcement agencies, should be 012726 3 following up on, if they are trying to piece together *Inn 4 what the sex trafficking organization was doing. inn 5 Q. Would you agree that a fair-minded person, 012131 6 with that background that you just described, would not 000 7 go to the conclusion that the fact that a name is 012144 8 circled indicates that that person has engaged in • 2246 9 criminal conduct? 012146 10 A. They — what it would indicate is that they 21s1 11 had information relevant to criminal activity. Now, 6121 54 12 would they on the just the fact that a name was alms 13 circled, standing alone, reach that conclusion? 01n so 14 well, that's a hypothetical question because el am 15 obviously in this case, there's lots of other 01bO 16 information. 01x07 17 Q. Did you understand -- it is true, is it not, onto 18 that Mr. Rodriguez was trying to sell that book? 0.2.0. 19 A. That's true. 0124.0 20 Q. And is it not also true that the people who 012613 21 are circled are famous people? 01:26 io 22 A. I'd have to refresh my recollection as to • an 23 exactly who was circled, but I know that some famous mars 24 people were circled and some famous people were not 01x01 25 cirded. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 3314400 A. Not off the top of my head, no. Q. If I mention to you or If I represent that she's a famous actress, any reason to question that? A. No. Q. In your view, was Courtney Love involved in sex trafficking? A. I don't know. Q. In your view, was Courtney Love a witness to sex trafficking? A. If — is there a way — are you representing her name is circled? Q. Her name is circled on the book. In fact, we can show it -- A. Okay. Yeah. Q. It is circled on the book. A. Okay. Sure. Yeah, I mean, my — my ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 19 of 46 sheets Page 224 to 227 of 335 10/20/2015 01:08:15 PM EFTA01116795 0111044 1 01304. 2 03 30 43 3 013030 4 0110M 5 013014 6 MON 7 013102 8 013101 9 01310? 10 01:3169 11 013314 12 its, 17 13 111:3110 14 u.3•2, 15 013115 16 1113124 17 013in 18 01)130 19 013311 20 w ar 21 O13324 22 0,8,3 23 may 24 013430 25 228 understanding would be that if her — and this is -- could I ask a question about the circling or your representation? Is the circling the same type of circling that Is done for Mr. Dershowitz, for example? Is it the same, you know, handwriting, same ink, same — same appearance? You know, if It's consistent with the circling — are you representing k's consistent with the circling? Q. Mr. Cassell, we have a document produced in discovery that has various names circled. Looking at the document, I don't see any difference among the circles. Are you aware of any document -- MR. SCAROLA: Could we have a look -- could we see the document? MR. SIMPSON: Take a -- go off the record for one moment. THE WITNESS: We are going off the video record, 10:03. (Thereupon, a recess was taken.) THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are back on the video record, 10:08 a.m. MR. SIMPSON: Okay. Back on the record. I'm going to ask the reporter to mark as Cassell Exhibit 5, a multi-page document. It's a copy of ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS 1954)331 - 4400 013422 of 013424 01930 1 2 3 4 230 all. Q. Take as long as you want to look at the document. A. Super. Thank you. etas, 5 Okay. Yeah. I think I'm — I'm oriented 013154 6 now. But I haven't looked at the Love entry. 613664 7 Q. My -- my first -- «MS7 8 A. I want to look at the Love — 013111 9 Q. -- Question Is: Is this a copy of the wen 10 address book that you referred to in your testimony? A Hsu 11 A. Yes. Glues 12 O. Okay. And if you would take a look at the -- 01)1104 13 I've marked the entries for Courtney Love. Take a look oi *11 14 at that one. 013013 15 A. All right. I see it. 0,1014 16 O. Okay. And then if you look at the last 01 30a 17 entry, there's an entry for Professor Dershowitz that's O13021 18 also circled. It should be on the flag. It's 0/ 202619 two-sided. Han 20 A. Oh, yeah. 1212021 21 Q. Do you see that one? It 3030 22 A. I see It 0,3•11 23 Q. And then also the other one I marked is moon 24 Donald Trump. O1 2234: 25 A. Yes. Got it. I see those entries circled. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 229 CI 3044 1 the address book we have been speaking about, and 01 3610 2 ask that Doc -- Mr. Cassell to take a look at nnii 3 this, and I'm going to ask him about certain of 013433 4 the entries. 033703 5 (Cassell 's I.D. Exhibit No. 5 • copy of 1113/10 6 address book was marked for identification.) 013143 7 MR. SIMPSON: And I will note, I put a few 013703 8 flags on here -- 013103 9 THE WITNESS: Sure. 012/03 10 MR. SIMPSON: -- to direct your attention -- Horn 11 THE WITNESS: Correct, yeah. MR. SIMPSON: -- which we can -- I'll note 013710 13 the pages for the record Just so we have them. 01 3/ 16 14 38, 76, and 85. 013/24 15 THE WITNESS: Okay. I Just -- I Just want to *inn 16 take two minutes or so -- 4131 as 17 BY MR. SIMPSON: morn 18 O. Yeah. Take -- take a moment to look at it. 013120 19 A. Okay. I want to make a few notes, if that's oust 20 all right, just to get them in 1•- 01 3607 21 Q. You're going to mark on the -- on 22 A. No, not on the exhibit. I'm just going to (nun 23 make notes to refresh my recollection so we don't have Han 24 to take time. I'm just — I'm just making notes of the 011•13 25 context here. This will just take another minute is ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 3314400 013701 12 231 01 10 41 1 Q. So am I right I'm right, am I rot, that 013060 2 among the others circled are: Courtney Love, Donald 013261 3 Trump, and Alan Dershowitz, correct? 013056 4 A. Correct, among the others, yes. alas, 5 0.. And they are all circled in the same way; are 014001 6 they not? 014040 7 A. Yeah. It's kind of a — a box is what I 014004 8 would say. Some, yes. O14001 9 Q. Is there anything on the face of that 014001 10 document that leads you to conclude that the circling -- Hon 11 the significance of the circling is any different for 0140 is 12 one person than another? 014017 13 A. No. 0...0q 14 Q. So based on the document, do you infer that Han 15 Courtney Love was Involved in some kind of sexual abuse 0.4030 16 of minors? 014030 17 A. I would Infer that if I were running a 014034 18 criminal investigation through the FBI and I'm trying to 014037 19 find people who would have relevant Information, she 014063 20 would be one of the people I'd want to talk to. I mean, 01400 21 the names that are circled here, Glenn Maxwell, one of oi ion 22 the identified traffickers, Epstein is circled, the *moo 23 pilot -- one of the pilots is circled. So It's these 01051 24 people that all seemed to be connected are -- are all 014055 25 being marked here, and — and the number of people that ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 10/20/2015 01:08:15 PM Page 228 to 231 of 335 20 of 46 sheets EFTA01116796 01 0202 014100 014101 MAIO 014111 014112 Oulu Dune Dula 232 I are circled is, I would say, you know, 5 to 10 percent 2 of the — of the names ball-parking in the dark. 3 Q. Do you know whether this address book was 4 Jeffrey Epstein's address book or Glenn Maxwell's 5 address book? 6 A. I'm not certain exactly whose book it is. 7 actually thought it was Alfredo Rodriguez maintaining a 8 copy of records in case he was worried that Epstein 9 might try to have him killed at some point, and so this • rt 10 was his insurance policy, I think he said, against that 014121 11 happening. %OM 12 MR. SIMPSON: Object to the nonresponsive 014191 13 portion of the answer. 4131 14 BY MR. SIMPSON: oirin 15 Q. Is the answer to my question: You don't know 016134 16 whether it was Jeffrey Epstein's or Glenn Maxwell's 014110 17 address book? 0141)0 18 A. I don't know. And the reason I don't know 014141 19 that is because I actually believe it is neither -- *taw 20 neither of their — that's -- is it one or the other? oloa 21 Actually, I think it's a third possibility. I think this was Alfredo Rodriguez's Insurance policy against getting knocked off by Jeffrey Epstein. Q. So that's the view you have of the 014201 25 signifkance of this document? ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 011145 22 .1•151 23 rims,. 24 024317 014317 O14324 01 as 014124 014231 014312 014114 O1.334 014)M 10 014142 11 014341 12 014347 13 (won 14 014254 15 016402 16 014404 17 ot.i. 18 014410 19 01 12 20 014213 21 014415 22 O1 44 16 23 014110 24 O 4410 25 234 1 BY MR. SIMPSON: 2 Q. But based on your testimony previously, you 3 would consider all of those facts to be evidence that he 4 may have been? 5 A. They are, you know, certainly things that I 6 would want to follow up on. 7 Q. And -- 8 A. If I were running an -- we were in the 9 context, I take it, of your question, you know, if somebody is running an investigation into the organization, so... Q. Did you, in the course of your representation of Miss Roberts or any of the other Jane Doe clients you have had who have had claims against W. Epstein, make any effort to find out whether Mr. Trump had abused any of them? MR. EDWARDS: I would just object to this being work-product privilege as it relates to other cases that I'm working on with Paul that Jack is not involved in. MR. SIMPSON: Okay. MR. EDWARDS: With respect to what we did during our Investigation on behalf of other clients. MR. SIMPSON: Okay. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 014201 233 A. Yes. In part. I mean, there are other oi ow 2 reasons it's significant, as we have been talking about, 014210 3 names are drded who appear to have relevant won 4 information on Jeffrey Epstein's criminal activities. 014217 5 Q. Donald Trump was a friend of Jeffrey Epstein; mun 6 is that not correct? 014223 7 A. I really don't -- my understanding is, yes, 014226 8 but I - I don't have a lot of Information about Trump. 014221 9 Q. It's true also, is it not, that Mr. Trump was 014234 10 a frequent visitor to Mr. Epstein's residence? 00.235 11 A. I - I know that he visited frequent. I -- I 014141 12 don't have a lot of information about Trump. ww.” 13 Q. And his name is circled in this book; is it .1 427 14 not? 014743 15 A. I believe it is. maim 16 Q. Based on him -- assuming he's a frequent 01012 17 visitor to Mr. Epstein's home, and that he's a friend of MOM 18 Mr. Epstein's, and that his name is circled in this el ow 19 book, do you infer that he was engaged in criminal mum 20 sexual abuse of minors? 014,1 21 MS. McCAWLEY: I'm going to object to the oi 4113 22 extent that your answer would reveal anything 4) is 23 that my client has told you. 01010 24 THE WITNESS: No. O,41,7 25 ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 014420 014120 2 014423 3 014423 4 019224 5 01 4472 6 014430 7 014432 8 014432 9 014432 10 014421 11 014424 12 014433 13 014•21 14 014441 15 014442 16 014444 17 014443 18 01440 19 O14492 20 In 4411 21 014453 22 014421 23 014103 24 ono) 25 235 MS. McCAWLEY: Right. And I object on that to the extent that it reveals an Ithn ou did on behalf MR. would know to object to this, but because I know of another case that we work on, that's protected by our work-product privilege, who I talked to and who I did not. THE WITNESS: I'd like to -- Wt. SCAROLA: In that case, I instruct you not to answer. THE WITNESS: All right. MR. SIMPSON: An right. You're here, Mr. Edwards, as a dient, not an attorney, correct? MR. EDWARDS: Yes. That's my primary role in being here, but I'm going to protect the privilege to the extent that it's not being protected by others who don't recognize that the privilege needs to be protected on other matters. MR. SIMPSON: Okay. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. Mr. Cassell, as of December 30th of 2014, were you aware that Professor Dershowitz had visited Mr. Epstein's home and stayed as a guest for a week in ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 21 of 46 sheets Page 232 to 235 of 335 10/20/2015 01:08:15 PM EFTA01116797 0145 W 1 236 the company of his grandchildren, among other family or is le 2 members? olds 3 A. I'm sorry. Which residence? Which Epstein 010573 4 residence? 014523 5 Q. Palm Beach. 014525 6 A. Can you — can you restate? 0/4575 7 Q. Yes. 4. 8 A. I mean that's kind of a compound question. I 014130 9 mean... 014130 10 Q. Well, let me rephrase R. I will be dear. 014531 11 A. Yeah. men 12 Q. Were you aware as of December 30th of 2014 0146 X 13 let me back up a moment. 01041 14 A. Sure. 01037 15 Q. You indicated yesterday that part of the 014540 16 basis for your conduslon that this pleading -- It was 014544 17 appropriate to file this pleading accusing Professor 01450 18 Dershowitz of misconduct was that he was a guest at the corm 19 Palm Beach house, correct? 014656 20 A. No. It was more than that. He was a 01450 21 frequent guest, a frequent overnight guest. 014001 22 Q. My question is: As of December 30th, 2014, 014001 23 were you aware that Professor Dershowitz had spent a 014.10 24 week at the Palm Beach house with family members, 014413 25 Including his grandchildren? ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 014105 1 014712 2 1114210 3 014/ 14 4 014711 5 014733 6 014741 7 4100 8 014747 9 014743 10 01015 11 01470 12 Are -- during the period that Virginia mins 13 Roberts contends she was sexually abused, which I 014002 14 understand to be middle of 1999 to middle of 2002 -- is eiwit 15 that consistent with your understanding? oral. 16 A. Approximately, yes. 014412 17 Q. -- how many times did Professor Dershowitz a au 18 visit the Palm Beach mansion during that period? 01441? 19 A. My understanding is In the neighborhood of — 014:2, 20 what was it? Three to five times a year, staying two to is a a 21 three nights at a time. 01 an 22 Q. And was that your understanding as of 014120 23 December 30th of 2014? 014032 24 A. Yes. iz 25 Q. what was the basis for your understanding, ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 3314400 238 scene of ongoing criminal abuse of minors, and who himself, has engaged in that criminal abuse, would bring his grandchildren to stay there for a week? A. It would depend on the circumstances. Q. When you say that Professor Dershowitz was a regular guest at the mansion, at the Palm Beach house, i llillse e it's correct ' ' (erring to a period aRe R for Thailand? A. Q. Are you aware of any evidence -- let me back that up. 014415 014415 114520 010123 w-a 01_u 014)5 014415 0/4637 9 010.0 10 c. es 40 11 01041 12 014042 13 01444 14 014043 15 014044 16 01400 17 01 44 18 01405/ 19 /mica 20 014054 21 0454 22 oss 23 014013 24 •147® 25 237 1 A. No. 2 Q. Okay. Do you think it's reasonable -- would 3 it be reasonable to believe that someone who is 4 committing criminal sexual abuse of minors at a home 5 where such abuse, as you understand it, is a daily 6 occurrence would bring his grandchildren to stay for a 7 week? 8 A. It would depend on the circumstances. I mean, you know, so you know, it would depend on the circumstances. MR. SCAROLA: Are you representing that Jeffrey Epstein was there at the time? MR. SIMPSON: I'm not answering questions. I'm asking questions. MR. SCAROLA: Oh, okay. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. So, in your view, you can -- let me -- let me rephrase that. You say it would depend on the circumstances -- A. Sure. Sure. Q. -- that's your answer? A. Yes. Q. Okay. So that you don't find it Incongruous that someone who knows that a particular home is the ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 014130 01041 01044 01401 010144 044414 031050 239 1 what pieces, what documents, or testimony? 2 A. Right. The Information, you know, I gave a 3 long presentation yesterday. So it was that 4 Information. 5 Q. I want to focus now specifically -- I'm not 6 looking for a full answer on your entire views -- 7 A. Yeah, right. 01053 8 Q. -- on the case. 014453 9 A. I appreciate that 01454 10 Q. I just want to say, you've testified that you 01415? 11 understood as of December 30th, 2014, that Professor 01003 12 Dershowit2 had -- was a visitor at the Palm Beach 014004 13 mansion three to five times during this relevant period o1003 14 of 1999 to -- middle of 1999 to the middle of 2002. 01414 15 What was the basis on December 30th of 2014, for just 0143/0 16 that fact? 014071 17 A. Right. I mean, I will take about a minute *ion 18 here because there are a few things I want — n 19 Q. Okay. And I want to make sure my question is 01020 20 dear. 014171 21 A. Sure. wow 22 Q. I'm not asking you about any of your *34 23 inferences about anything else. Just, what's the basis 014144 24 for your belief that he visited three to five times ei s 25 during that two-year period? ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331.4400 10/20/2015 01:08:15 PM Page 236 to 239 of 335 22 of 46 sheets EFTA01116798 240 et an 1 MR. SCAROLA: Could I ask for a 014040 2 clarification? Are you looking only for direct Heti, 3 evidence and you want to exclude the 0101144 4 circumstantial evidence? Is that the way you otitis 5 want to •' 0100•I 6 MR. SIMPSON: I'm asking. You can object to 011•30 7 the form. 011046 8 BY MR. SIMPSON: o14en 9 Q. My question Is: What was -- what were you -- 0. oil 10 what did you have in mind as supporting your conclusion 014037 11 or tenet that he -- that Professor Dershowltz visited 014002 12 three to five times during that relevant penod? 013004 13 MS. McCAWLEY: And I'm sum/. Can I just math 14 place an objection on the record. I'm going to 01,10/ 15 object to the extent that -- so that you do not reveal attorney/client privileged communication, 014012 17 unless it's something that's already public that mai, 18 she's revealed. 013013 19 THE WITNESS: Okay. Right. So I'm going to 011017 20 just exclude -- I take it your question isn't Huns 21 asking about any communications. max 22 BY MR. SIMPSON: 011022 23 Q. My question is asking about that, but I 01024 24 understand you're going to refuse to provide it. in an 25 MS. McCAWLEY: Unless it's already public. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331.4400 pl.., la 16 242 015123 1 context, in other words, information that was 013123 2 going to be disclosed, not for advice, but was 30 3 factual information that she intended to its, a 4 disclose, that's no -- that's not privileged. oi stu 5 But if it's something that she communicated to Hite 6 you in confidence with respect to getting legal 4,.a 7 advice, then that would be privileged. 01301 8 THE WITNESS: Right. Okay. So Juan Alessi ' s 0131.43 9 deposition, Alfredo Rodriguez's deposition, and Hilo 10 then considerable circumstantial evidence which we don't have to rehash here involving the dose 0131 9.11 12 personal association between Epstein and 01330313 Dershowltz. 01 SICO 14 I mean, again, we can rehash all of that, but 013103 15 those were -- those are -- that's kind of a 016201 16 quick -- because I know you want to get to a lot earn 17 of questions -- that's a quick sort of highlight met. 18 film, if you will. 013200 19 BY MR. SIMPSON: owl, 20 Q. Mr. Cassell, isn't it true that Mr. Rodriguez al ft.. 21 was not hired until several years after the Summer 011219 22 A. 2004. 011220 23 Q. Let me ask it again. 011221 24 -- until well after 2002? et um 25 A. Yeah, about 2004. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331.4400 013132 11 013020 013010 4 241 1 THE WITNESS: Okay. So as Of December 30th, 015014 2 ' communications from 013033 3 pt to extent that they have 013031 5 already been made public. That is, if she has Haze 6 given express permission to make disclosures, 01000 7 these were not confidential communications, but 8 communications intended to be communicated to third parties, tit " dude information fro response to the ad. THE WITNESS: Okay. BY MR. SIMPSON: $006 41110a 9 el as: 10 tun. 11 a.m. 12 01 SI CO 13 013%30 14 013101 15 • 6,03 16 ones 17 013106 18 01.3106 19 • si co 20 0141.0 21 Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. As of December -- Right -- 30th, 2014 -- Right. -- correct? So -- Yeah, that's right. any public statements by her after December 30th, 2014 would not be included in the answer. • 22 A. Okay. as SI 14 23 MS. McCAWLEY: But let me be dear. Let me etsin 24 be clear about my objection. To the extent that el sill 25 she revealed something to you in a nonprivileged ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 013223 1 01$72. 2 0147311 3 013134 4 013730 5 013233 6 015701 7 01603 8 015245 9 0132-41 10 *Intl 11 016214 12 0152 SI 13 II SIM 14 016300 15 *I sis 16 mow 17 243 Q. And Mr. Rodriguez would have no personal knowledge of how often Professor Dershowitz visited during a period two years or three years before he was hired; isn't that true? A. So, look, this is — this is why I was trying to speed up the answer to the question. We have a sex trafficking organization that is running a common scheme and plan that is continuing on until it was interrupted by law enforcement about 2005 and 2006. So what the -- the criminal organization is doing in 2004, unless I have some significant evidence that it's different than what was going on in 2002, 2001, 2000, 1999, I think It's reasonable to conclude that the same sort of criminal activities are going on later. So if — if you want — if you want me to get into the — the full scope of the criminal organization, 013101 18 we can get into it. But the fact that somebody in 2004 el fa 13 19 sees this going on, leads me to conclude that It's 0153* 20 probably the same thing going on in the absence of other 015319 21 information in 2001. Q. So from Mr. Rodriguez's testimony about what was going on, so to speak -- and my question related, what was going on the number of times that Professor Dershowitz visited. That's the topic. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 015121 22 015310 23 01v32 24 015331 25 23 0146 sheets Page 240 to 243 of 335 10/20/2015 01:08:15 PM EFTA01116799 244 asset 1 A. Right. Ou53 3? 2 Q. That because he visited, according to 01 1340 3 Mr. Rodriguez, several times a year in 2004, 2005, he 011341 4 must have visited several times a year in 2000 -- 19- '- MOM 5 middle of 1999 to the middle of 2002. et 0316 6 A. I didn't say must have. I said that that's te nu 7 going to be evidence of the common scheme and plan, and el On 8 then, in the absence of, you know, some falling out O15402 9 between people or somebody becoming, you know, more Hues 10 associated or Less associated with a criminal 044407 11 organization. I mean, if you want to get into the Hum 12 circumstantial evidence, in 2003, there's an ankle on oi 5415 13 which, you know, Dershowitz identifies himself — testis 14 Q. Let me interrupt you because I'm asking -- Hens 15 A. Okay. oleos 16 Q. — about my only question is evidence of OISMS 17 how -- not anything, whether engaged In conduct or ei s4 n 18 didn't engage in conduct, Just how many times he came el Si 26 19 during this period. tin 20 A. Right. elan 21 MR. SCAROIA: Excuse me, counsel. That's the el an 22 reason why I asked you to clarify whether you MS4 30 23 want to limit this to direct evidence or whether es use 24 you want all of the evidence including 11,54 35 25 circumstantial evidence, because as we both know, ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331.4400 246 Hesse 1 MR. SIMPSON: Really, objecting to the form 011123 2 of the question preserves all of any problems re 6120 3 there may be with the question. 011627 4 MR. SCAROIA: No, sir. 015617 5 MR. SIMPSON: We don't need a speech. 01 5627 6 MR. SCAROLA: It doesn't. It doesn't. 011637 7 BY MR. SIMPSON: 015533 8 Q. Mr. Cassel, is it your testimony that, from 01 56 3/ 9 Mr. Rodriguez's testimony about how often he says men 10 Professor Dershowitz visited in a 2004/2005 time frame, mess 11 it's fair to draw an inference about how often he • sses 12 visited in an earlier -- three-year earlier time frame? oissse 13 A. In the circumstances of this case, ei este 14 absolutely. *ISSN 15 Q. And would it be fair to infer from the number el wee 16 ci times that Donald Trump visited three years later, how often he visited at an earlier period? 01540218 A. I did not Investigate the circumstances 04 le 12 19 involving Trump. He wasn't somebody that was coming up. Q. Were you aware on December 30th of 2014 that 0156 21 21 Donald Trump was quoted In Vanity Fair as saying: "I've 012630 22 known Jeff" -- referring to Epstein -- oh, I'm sorry. 01 S6 34 23 it was a New Yorker Magazine, not Vanity Fair. That he Glue 24 was quoted as saying: "I've known Jeff- -- referring to 0.565 25 Epstein -- "for 15 years. Terrific guy. And he's a lot ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 3314400 016164 17 0156 n 20 015420 1 011442 2 011445 3 011441 4 O11441 5 O154,4 6 0154 7 015413 8 011414 9 0154$2 10 Os MSS 11 re mar 12 01$462 13 on's/ 14 015414 15 O 14 64 16 slam 17 056502 18 tosser 19 011102 20 mssor 21 woe 22 O1x13 23 Ois is 24 0.4519 25 245 circumstantial evidence is good evidence. A well-connected chain of circumstance can be -- MR. SIMPSON: We really don't need a speech. MR. SCAROLA: -- a well-connected -- MR. SIMPSON: We really don't -- MR. SCAROLA: -- chain of circumstance may be as compelling proof as direct evidence of a given fact. That's the law. If you don't want -- MR. SIMPSON: Really, sir. MR. SCAROLA: -- the circumstantial evidence -- MR. SIMPSON: Mr. Scarola -- MR. SCAROLA: -- tell us that. MR. SIMPSON: -- please don't make speeches, and please don't coach the witness. MR. SCAROLA: lust tell us that. I'm not coaching the witness. I'm asking you -- you're asking ambiguous questions. MR. SIMPSON: There's nothing ambiguous -- MR. SCAROLA: If you want only direct evidence, we will give you only direct evidence. If you want a full and complete answer, it's got to include circumstantial evidence, so don't cut him off when he's giving you that. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331.4400 Sinn 1 of fun to be with." It even said that: lie likes es Ho 2 beautiful women as much as I do, and many el them are on M.353 3 the younger side. No doubt about it, Jeffrey enjoys the 015056 4 social -- social life"? Were you aware of that on men 5 December 30th, 2014? M3014 6 A. Possibly. I mean that sounds vaguely el S7 01 7 familiar. Trump has just not been somebody that — that eines 8 I've paid much attention to In this case. ei de? 9 Q. Based on that statement, and the facts we rims 10 discussed earlier about Mr. Trump visiting and being a 011711 11 friend, and the other circumstances we discussed, are you suspicious about whether he engaged in sexual 011721 13 misconduct with minors? noon 14 MS. McCAWLEY: I'm going to object to the en? 30 15 extent that you can't reveal anything that my of szei 16 client has informed you of. 011733 17 THE WITNESS: Right. If we set aside that mum 18 information, I'm not -- I'm not suspicious, no, Hun 19 not given the information I have. Hos 20 BY MR. SIMPSON: • s? 0 21 Q. Okay. So notwithstanding that his name is • sin 22 circled in the address book, he was a good friend, he 01 17 4/ 23 visited often, and he was quoted as saying that Jeff was co 54 24 a terrific guy who liked young women almost as much as ei sin 25 Trump did, you're not even suspicious? ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 247 011114 12 10/20/2015 01:08:15 PM Page 244 to 247 of 335 24 of 46 sheets EFTA01116800 248 el Hei 1 A. Not you know, let's break that down in a .us 2 couple pieces. 414100 3 The fact that his name is circled, if I were 01 UN 4 running an FBI investigation, I'd go send somebody to a u io 5 see what he knew about it, but no, it would take a lot OIL If 6 more for me to become suspicious that somebody is el fit 7 involved in — in sexual activity like that. MP IS 8 O. Okay. So you would agree with me then, that 01162. 9 the fact that a person often visited the mansion, the in saw 10 person -- the fact that a person was a friend of • sari 11 Mr. Epstein for 15 years, the fact that the person had ol is 3? 12 stated publicly that: 'Mr. Epstein liked young women 0114 Nf 13 almost as much as I do myself,' and the fact that the 1111.40 14 name is circled in the address book is not sufficient to • pin 15 raise a suspicion that that person engaged in sexual nue 16 misconduct? 01340 17 A. So... Hues 18 O. Yes or no. It's a yes or no question. • swi 19 A. It requires — ems: 20 MR. SCAROLA: You're not required to answer 01 Sig 21 yes or no, if a yes or no response alone would be m son 22 misleading. es sate 23 THE WITNESS: The problem is the word m can 24 -suspicion' I'm not particularly suspicious on *ism 25 those facts, but it -- you know, what do you mean ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 250 nun I and energy In that, right. 020112 2 Q. And you referred to your pro bono case. What 020216 3 is your best estimate of how much money you have made 021021 4 representing victims of Jeffrey Epstein? noon 5 A. In which case are we talking about now? 0202 24 6 a My -- any case representing a victim of ewe 20 7 Jeffrey Epstein. WON 8 A. I need to confer with 010U 9 MS. McCAWLEY: Yeah. I'm going to object. (awn 10 BY MR. SIMPSON: 4/0034 11 Q. And that -- that's a fact -- that's not a moon 12 privileged question. That's a factual question. 021037 13 A. Factual. Well, there are — there are — num 14 Q. lust how much money? You don't have to tell OM 4i 15 me who the clients are. Just how much money? 02C044 16 A. okay I need to 020044 17 MR. SIMPSON: There's a question pending. I moon 18 object to a break. There's no possible 02004.19 privilege. wows 20 MR. SCAROIA: He has a privilege -- he has a taw so 21 privilege question. He wants to consuk with 020311 22 counsel. nom 23 MR. SIMPSON: Well, really? My question is 020263 24 how much money, and that's privileged? moon 25 MR. SCAROIA: It may be. I don't know. We ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331.4400 249 *Ism 1 by 'suspicion"? If I -- if I were running an FBI Cri Wag 2 investigation and somebody circled a name as -- num 3 as saying, look, this fellow may have some 0164C41 4 information, I'd go follow up on that. • Hu, 5 If you say that's suspicion, then the answer tin la 6 would be, yes. But I -- you know, based on that 015111 7 information alone, no. I mean that -- that 01w,. 8 wouldn't -- wouldn't be enough for me to, you 05422 9 know, invest time and energy into that particular 011026 10 possibility. O11424 11 BY MR. SIMPSON: 016/21 12 Q. Okay. So none of those facts are sufficient 9•31 13 even to justify spending time and energy, correct? 01 >4 14 A. Unless -- if I'm running — this is — again, m ow 15 what do you mean by "suspicion"? Time and energy in the 014442 16 context of somebody who is running a pro bono case with 015444 17 limited resources to try to figure out what the sex 01 44.2 18 trafficking ring's going to do, I'm not going to chase ewe, 19 after that rabbit. It seems farfetched. wows 20 I'm going to focus my efforts on the people awe 21 who appear to be more directly involved. in wig 22 Q. Okay. So based on the facts that I gave you taws 23 a moment ago, you think ifs farfetched that Donald 020001 24 Trump was engaged in abusing minors? wow 25 A. If that's all I had, I would not invest time ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 020)14 010)51 1 2 noon 3 • m 4 no. 02 5 010103 6 • os 7 am co 8 was 9 • 0) 10 coo. la 11 020111 12 020111 13 020111 14 020113 15 020113 16 COSI 1. 17 020,1 18 020120 19 n 20 020114 21 020,a 22 0201n 23 arm zo 24 020112 25 251 need to talk. THE WITNESS: That's why I need to -- MR. SCOTT: There's no federal law or state law that supports that financial information and fees is privileged. MS. McCAWLEY: We can argue about that because that's in my motion, so we can argue about that. MR. SIMPSON: well, can - can -- MR. SCOTT: That one, I know all about. MR. SCAROLA: You're objecting to our taking a break -- MR. SIMPSON: I am objecting -- MR. SCAROIA: -- while this question is pending? MR. SIMPSON: That's correct. MR. SCAROIA: It is ow position that the witness has a legal question about privilege. We are going to take a break. We are going to talk about it. It may turn out that it's not a problem at all. I don't know. THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are going off the video record, 10:38. MR. SIMPSON: With my note, we are taking a break over my objection. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954)331-4400 25 of 46 sheets Page 248 to 251 of 335 10/20/2015 01:08:15 PM EFTA01116801 252 254 an 1. 1 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: 10:38. sans, 1 counsel of record in three cases and you were involved ran u 2 (Thereupon, a recess was taken.) nun 2 in another case -- at least one other case in which you nu to 3 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are back on the video nuns 3 did not appear -- cis 42 4 record, 10:49 a.m. nun 4 A. That's right. 02100 5 BY MR. SIMPSON: it,.,. 5 Q. -- as counsel of record; is that correct? w,... 6 an a 7 Q. Back on the record. My question, Mr. Cassell, was: What is your best estimate of how 021900 6 *risco 7 A. That's — that's my recollection right now, yeah. wine 8 much money you have made representing victims of Jeffrey 021003 8 Q. All right. How many of those cases have been 023131 9 Epstein? num 9 resolved at this point? omen 10 A. In which case are we talking about? silos 10 A. All. All — of the four, I recall all four 02/66. 11 Q. In -- in any case. Combined total. nun 11 have been resolved. 02'1101 12 A. Okay. With regard to the CVRA case, that's 021101 12 Q. Okay. Without telling me the amount, did you 02170. 13 pro bono, no money there. With regard to the other 02 /t 12 13 receive -- all four were settled; Is that right? st OW 14 cases, I'd like to answer your question, but due to sits 14 A. Correct. 02 7710 15 confidentiality obligations that have been imposed upon em's 15 Q. Without telling me the amount, Is It correct 021713 16 me by Jeffrey Epstein, in the course of negotiating 021031 16 that in all four of those cases, you received a legal to out 17 those cases, I'm not permitted to answer that question. 021227 17 fee? s,,.,, 18 MR. SCAROLA: We are certainly willing to 4202s 18 A. I think that starts to call for a question I et on 19 respond appropriately to a court order in that 020331 19 need to consult with my attorney about. non 20 regard, but it requires a court order to release 021030 20 Q. Simply the question of whether in each of 0217 20 21 us from the contractual confidentiality aun 21 them you received a fee? 021733 22 obligations that we are under. 0111100 22 A. I just want to... 027713 23 BY MR. SIMPSON: nu* 23 THE WITNESS: Is -- is there any problem -- 02023 24 Q. Is it your testimony, Mr. Cassell, that there tuna 24 MR. SCAROLA: You can respond to that. You 0217m 25 are confidentiality agreements with Mr. Epstein that al is u 25 can answer yes or no to that question. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4100 (951) 3314400 253 255 ma. I preclude you from giving the total amount paid without 02711M 1 THE WITNESS: Yes, I received something. 021751 2 breaking it down Into particular cases? isitsn 2 BY MR. SIMPSON: 021233 3 A. I'm sorry. I didn't understand. 031041 3 Q. Okay. Was the fee -- and if it's different WO 30 4 Q. Oh, maybe that wasn't dear. Let me do it 021050 4 for the -- the cases, tell me, but was it a contingent 02 17 54 5 this way so we avoid -- win. 5 fee or some kind of hourly fee? nun 6 A. Yeah. 02,.50 6 MR. SCAROLA: That -- that does get into mum 7 Q. -- the confidentiality Issues. 02 1161 7 attorney/client privileged matters. The terms -- stun 8 In how many cases have you been counsel for a 022002 8 MR. SIMPSON: You're instructing him not to mum 9 person suing Mr. Epstein alleging that she was a victim? 027001 9 answer? C0 III 12 10 A. Counsel of record? ones 10 MR. SCAROLA: -- the terms of the an,. 11 Q. Put it this way. How -- well, start with 022004 11 representation are attorney/client privilege. I ic 417 12 that, counsel of record. R22003 12 instruct him not to answer. Nun 13 A. I believe three. 072001 13 MR. SIMPSON: All right. a wit 14 Q. Okay. And in addition to those three, have mom 14 BY MR. SIMPSON: 020120 15 you assisted other counsel in sonic way without becoming 022010 15 Q. In addition to these four cases that have 02 31 20 16 counsel of record In cases by women suing Mr. Epstein 02201) 16 been resolved, are you representing any other clients 0211.30 17 alleging that they had been abused? 02201. 17 who are alleging, in a case seeking monetary damages, 0214M 18 A. I believe there's one other case in addition 022023 18 that they were abused by Jeffrey Epstein? a... 19 to the counsel of record case. 02202. 19 A. I — a.° 20 Q. And without telling me -- onsis 20 MS. McCAWLEY: I'm going to object to the a,... 21 A. I'd -- I'd have to go double-check my record. anon 21 any Information related to a,.. 22 This is an approximate best recollection. 022031 22 could be deemed privileged 02... 23 Q. All right. 0230$ 23 or con en a . nun 24 A. It's about four. ones 24 THE WITNESS: So what's the... wits 25 Q. To the best of your recollection, you were Os 25 ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 3314400 (954) 3314400 10/20/2015 01:08:15 PM Page 252 to 255 d 335 26 of 46 sheets EFTA01116802 022035 1 256 BY MR. SIMPSON: 022030 2 Q. I'm -- I'm trying to close a loop here. 022040 3 A. Yeah. =2040 4 Q. I'm asking whether you were involved in any 02204 5 other cases in which claims have been made against 022047 6 Jeffrey Epstein for damages that are still active; they 122032 7 have not been resolved? 022013 8 A. So we are talking civil cases, unresolved 02010 9 civil cases against Jeffrey Epstein right now? erne 10 02102 11 ten= 12 02,53 13 mice 14 022104 15 V12101 16 0202 22 17 0211 4 18 mills 19 0221 4 20 02 >In 21 OW 20 22 =:1 21 23 021121 24 072121 25 Q. Unresolved cases seeking money from Jeffrey Epstein. MR. SCAROLA: And to the extent that that question calls for matters that are of public record, then, obviously, you can respond. THE WITNESS: Right. Yeah. None. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. Are there -- and I'm not asking for the name. Are there any not of public record that -- A. What would be a "not"? Q. Well, if you had made a claim that's riot In suit, for example. A. Oh, against Jeffrey Epstein? Q. Yes. A. Yeah. No, I don't -- I don't think there's anything. Yeah, no — no claims against Epstein, right ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 3314400 rano 1 022244 2 022140 3 *onto 4 02 2213 5 cm.. 6 012301 7 022301 8 ante 9 258 A. Yeah. That hasn't been something that I have focused on, no. I mean... Q. It is it is correct, is it not, that you anticipate that if you are successful in setting aside the nonprosecution agreement that the names of additional victims will become known; didn't you testify to that yesterday? A. i - I'm not — I must be confused here. don't remember. tenor 10 O. Well, wait -- I don't want to -- you know, 012301 11 let me ask the question -- ants 12 A. Yeah. con* 13 Q. -- rather than my recollection. New 14 A. Yeah, yeah. That's what I'm not... own 15 Q. My question is: Do you anticipate that if rants 16 you're successful in setting aside the nonprosecution cams 17 agreement, that the names of additional victims will 022323 18 become known? °inn 19 A. Additional Epstein victims at this point? 022121 20 Q. Yes. 072124 21 A. Again, it's pretty speculative. The — 023330 22 the Issue — you know, the case, you know, the events Num 23 were roughly a decade ago. I mean, we are always hoping 0233 SO 24 that there might be somebody additional that would come canto 25 forward, but that hasn't been the focus of the ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 022133 02123 0221 33 02111 022145 02147 022150 03151 022153 257 1 Q. And •• and It's true, is it not, that if 2 you're successful in the CVRA case, In setting aside the 3 nonprosecution agreement, you expect to get other 4 clients who will have claims against Jeffrey Epstein? 5 A. If we — in civil daims? 6 Q. Claims for damages, claims for money from 7 Jeffrey Epstein. 8 A. That -- I mean, that starts to — if the 9 nonprosecution agreement Is set aside? 02214 10 Q. Yes, if you're successful. 022119 11 A. I haven't really — that sounds pretty ono, 12 speculative. I haven't really thought about the oznot 13 dvIl — the focus of the CVRA case is criminal. I one 14 haven't thought about, you know, whether, civil claims ti 15 could somehow arise out of that. I mean, we are talking en,. 16 about, you know, events that took place long ago. There canto 17 would be statute of limitations issues, you know. 012220 18 Whether they are viable civil claims at this point has 022124 19 not been something that I have, you know, given much o2n2s 20 thought to. arms 21 Q. So is it your testimony then that you have an 7. 22 not thought about the question of whether success in the ov 2333 23 CVRA case may or result In you obtaining additional owe 24 clients with claims for money damages against Jeffrey can., 25 Epstein? ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331.4400 259 022343 1 litigation. 012343 2 Q. Whether -- OW 0 3 A. And you always hope that there are — yeah, I 022340 4 mean, any time you file a case, ah, I hope some more, 022310 5 you know, witnesses will come forward to support that 022352 6 case, but that hasn't been the focus, trying to secure onus 7 additional -- additional witnesses. That Is a 072351 8 possibility, though. I mean, I think in fairness to 022400 9 your question, that is a possibility that, you know, 022402 10 if — if the case attracts attention and — and 022406 11 somebody, you know, says, you know, gosh, now that I — essa 12 I -- I -- you know, I moved away to escape Epstein and 022410 13 now it's safe for me to come back, or or now I 027413 14 realize I have a daim, that's always a possibility. 022415 15 I certainly wouldn't want to suggest that, 0224 I/ 16 you know, we are ruling that possibility out 02144 17 Q. And for the same reason that additional witnesses might become available -- known, additional 022427 19 clients might become known, correct? rasa 20 A. That is a theoretical possibility, yes. mix 21 Q. In these four cases that you mentioned, the 022434 22 three that were, which you were counsel of record and rain 23 one in which you were not, did you meet at any time In 0224 44 24 person with the clients? And if It's different as to 0224 to 25 some than others, tell me that, but -- ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 021423 18 27 of 46 sheets Page 2S6 to 259 of 335 10/20/2015 01:08:15 PM EFTA01116803 C8 75 SO 1 02240 2 022852 3 eau 4 nag 5 623416 6 max 7 07708 8 022303 9 012505 10 nave 11 ten, 12 07810 13 ors .4 14 0285 0 15 nen 16 cenn 17 022521 18 Roo 19 022525 20 12260 21 022634 22 s7tn 3/ 23 02 24 52 24 012644 25 A. Q. A. Q. 260 Yes. In all four, you met with the clients? In three of the four. And were those three the three in which you were counsel of record? A. Yes. Q. As of December -- A. I believe I was counsel of record on all three of those. I would have to double-check. I know I was counsel of record in the federal case. The two of them are state casts, I believe, that it was pro hac in the state cases. Q. Okay. I won't ask you the names, but In the four cases, what are the Initials of your clients? A. Okay. So the — the -- Q. Put It this way: How are they identified in the caption that you filed? A. Well, also the three that were filed, one was — one was the initials S.R. I referred to Miss S.R. yesterday. That was the Jane Doe case in Federal Court in front of Judge Marra. There were two state claims. I'll -- identify the clients as E.W. and L.M. Q. And then the fourth one? A. The fourth one, I believe the initial M. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 262 oar. 1 firing on December 30th d 2014, was the first time that earn 2 you had ever, yes, ever on behalf oar it 3 any other client, accused Professor r z or 017725 4 Prince Andrew of sexual abuse in a public filing? ears 5 A. If you're talking about direct allegation, si 6 that's correct. • 31 7 Q. Had you ever pudic -- well, at no other time 0227 26 8 that -- you expected when you filed the pleating on ono 9 December 30th, 2014, that it would be -- be something of an* 10 public record that would generate publicity, correct? orna 11 A. Public record, the focus was not generating tenni 12 publicity. Of course, when you file an allegation like W2714 13 that, there certainly would have been — we would mass 14 anticipate there would have been publidty, absolutely. 02 27 SO 15 Q. And before December 30th of 2014, to the best • n 01 16 of your knowledge, neither you, nor anyone else, had 022100 17 told Professor Dershowitz that there were allegations 012112 18 that he personally had engaged in sexual misconduct? rano 19 A. Urn... 02210 20 MS. McCAWLEY: I'm going to object to that 022620 21 date if that reveals anything that would be fano 22 privileged between something that would have been maa 23 communicated by the client. wan 24 MR. SIMPSON: No. These are communications 022627 25 to Professor Dershowitz. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954)331-4400 263 titan 1 MR. SCAROLA: Yes. And that could very well men 2 include attorney/diem privileged 021033 3 communications. ten 4 MR. SIMPSON: let me -- ask my question. man 5 By MR. SIMPSON: 121136 6 Q. My question is: Did you ever advise rata 7 Professor Dershowitz that there were allegations that he 022850 8 had engaged, himself, in sexual misconduct with minors? anise 9 A. Not me personally, no. 02 26S? 10 Q. Are you aware of any e-mail, letter, other 1122104 11 communication from anybody that went to Professor Dershowitz that told Professor Dershowitz that he had awn 13 been accused of engaging in misconduct himself? man 14 A. Well, there-- I mean, I'm aware that there 0200 15 was a deposition request In 2009. There was a 02»n 16 deposition request in 2011. That was accompanied by an • n 17 exchange of correspondence that said, for example, 07019 18 numerous witnesses have placed you in the presence of 07011 19 Jeffrey Epstein and underaged girls. It didn't then go ten 20 on to say, and you were committing sexual abuse of them, ea re 21 but it said numerous witnesses had — had done that. o2no 22 And I think a reasonable inference would be 022113 23 that, you know, you're verily sure that a witness and co NO 24 then that also raises the possibility of — well, I 022141 25 mean, I think Professor Dershowitz mentioned yesterday, ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954)331-4400 261 612565 1 and I believe the last Initial was B., but I may be 022514 2 wrong about the B. First initial M. wino 3 Q. At the -- okay. At the time that you filed 022104 4 the Joinder motion -- 02x05 5 A. Yes. 022605 6 Q. -- In the federal case, so December 30th of mew 7 022115 8 terse 9 terse 10 rams 11 cams 12 012612 13 0224 14 ern 15 012641 16 072646 17 nano 18 012614 19 07260 20 anis 21 022700 22 022702 23 612705 24 022107 25 2014, you knew that naming Prince Andrew would generate substantial publicity, correct? A. I knew it would attract a lot of attention. Yeah, I mean, "substantial" we could debate, but, sure, I knew that that was going to -- you know, once you start exposing the extent of this criminal activity, obviously, there were going to be a lot of people interested, yes. Q. And you also knew that naming Professor DershowItz would attract publicity? A. Well, when you say "naming," one of the things you've got to understand is the names were already In the case, both Prince Andrew and Alan Dershowitz. We had pending discovery requests for information about both of them. So when you say "naming them," you know, they were already named in the case. Now, would the additional allegations have attracted additional attention? Sure. Q. Mr. Cassell, it's true, is it not, that the ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954)331-4400 01»m 12 10/20/2015 01:08:15 PM Page 260 to 263 of 335 28 of 46 sheets EFTA01116804 02161 1 2914 2 02 39 67 3 0230021 4 021002 023004 6 awe? 7 awls 8 02 3039 9 01102$ 10 axis 11 023022 12 0032 13 snow 14 31300 15 02300 16 023043 17 03041 16 moo 19 03 3030 20 •230,1 21 caw 03 22 023.04 23 02 3107 24 02 3„2 25 264 that if you're in the presence of a convicted sex offender, or a sex offender and sex abuse is going on, you would have obligations, for example, at a minimum to report that, and it raises the possibility of other criminal activity as well. Q. Is it your testimony, Mr. Cassell, that telling a person that multiple people have identified you as a witness to some activity is fair notice that you, yourself, are acoised of engaging in criminal misconduct? A. So -- so you, I think, recharacterized the letter that went to Mr. Dershowitz in 2011. The letter, as I recall, doesn't say he is a witness. It says, if I recall -- we can double-check the language — but I believe the language says: Numerous witnesses have placed you In the presence of Jeffrey Epstein, underaged girls, and Epstein. Then, you know, so at that point, given what we know in this case, given that at that point in 2011, there had been an ongoing set of allegations against Mr. Epstein, I - I think your question doesn't — doesn't take into account this surrounding context. Not to mention the fact there had been a 2009 deposition request and a 2013 document request. Q. Okay. I think you accurately characterized ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331.4400 02 3203 1 ova 2 02310 3 021204 4 ax„ 5 023112 6 *13113 7 Cs'. 8 O13O 9 021223 10 Drum 11 266 MR. SIMPSON: I'm sorry. You were right, yes. MR. SCAROLA: Can you Just Mow it to him? MR. SIMPSON: read it, and then if he wants to look at it, that will be fine. MR. SCAROLA: Thank you. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. This is a letter from Mr. Scarola to Mr. Dershowltz dated August 23rd, 2011. The second sentence says -- well, I'm going to read the whole thing. 023224 12 MR. SCAROLA: Yeah, thank you. 13 BY MR. SIMPSON: 14 Q. 'We do nor -- 15 MR. SCAROLA: It's short, so it would be 16 helpful if you just read the whole thing. 17 BY MR. SIMPSON: 18 Q. Yeah. 02 3231 19 we do not intend to inquire about any renii 20 privileged communications or attorney work con 21 product. We do, however, have reason to believe 023337 22 that you have personally observed Jeffrey Epstein 013241 23 in the presence of underaged females, and we an4 4 24 would like the opportunity to question you under 011247 25 oath about those observations. Thank you for ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331.4400 265 cew 1 the communication about the deposition request that 023.39 2 multiple persons have placed you in the presence -- 023,23 3 A. Right. are 33 4 Q. -- of minors 07.1173 5 A. Right 022124 6 Q. -- correct? 023127 7 A. I believe that's my recollection. Numerous ems 39 8 witnesses have placed you in the presence of sex 0211 u 9 offend — at that point, convicted sex offender Jeffrey an Is 10 Epstein, who was convicted of sexually abusing underaged 021131 11 girls, and underaged girls, and those are the subjects on, a 12 we would like to question you about. cano 13 And rather than getting a response that says, 013146 14 well, let me dear that all up, the response that's 0131.• 15 received was, something along the lines of, give me more ens, 16 information and — and, quote: I'll decide whether I 0231 si 17 want to cooperate, close quote, or something along those 0231sT 18 lines. 02 31 sr 19 Q. Mr. Cassell, let me -- Pm going to read to 03.31 51 20 02 MI 21 A. Good. 0231 Se 22 Q. -- from the letter Itself -- rev se 23 A. Okay. Rum 24 Q. -- and tell me if It's consistent with your 02/203 25 recollection. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331.4400 267 02)231 1 your anticipated cooperation. Signed, Jack num 2 Scarola.- ORM 3 If you would like to -- 0202M 4 A. Sure. one 5 Q. -- take a look at the letter to refresh ass? 6 yourself, you're welcome to. www 7 A. Great. Thanks. Okay. <QUM 8 Q. Now, first, you're aware, are you not, that cent. 9 Professor DershovAtz answered that letter and said the nun 10 assertion that he had observed Mr. Epstein in the 0233-11 11 presence of underage -- cent: 12 MR, SCAROLA: Females. 0233.02 13 BY MR. SIMPSON: 02 33» 14 0213 24 15 021124 16 wsits 17 02 3)11 18 be great. caw u 19 Q. And "I have never -- this is a letter from 023302 20 Mr. Dershowitz to Mr. Scarola, August 29th, 2011. 02 3334 21 "Dear Mr. Scarola, I have never personally 079 41 22 observed Jeffrey Epstein in the presence of 40 33 43 23 underaged females. I do not believe you have any awes 24 reasonable basis for believing that t have. If 0213 43 25 you have -- if you claim to have reason to ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331.4400 Q. A. Q. A. -- females was not true? Something along those lines, yeah. Yeah. And I will read it from that letter -- Okay. That would be good. Yeah, that would 29 of 46 sheets Page 264 to 267 of 335 10/20/2015 01:08:15 PM EFTA01116805 cams 1 mass 2 num 3 021311 4 MA 01 5 013401 6 mum 7 02 34 04 8 013400 9 *02 03 10 268 believe, please provide me with any such reason. I am certain I can demonstrate to you that it Is false.' Is that consistent with your recollection of the response? A. That sounds about right, yeah. Q. So Mr. Dershowitz did not ignore the letter; he responded to it, correct? A. I think that's right Q. And go back to the first letter. 023410 11 A. But, now, if we are — If we're talking 0234 11 12 about — yeah, there's that one letter and now there's a coin 13 response letter, right. tax 14 14 Q. My question to you Is: Does the statement to 02 14 /I 15 a person that "we have reason tO believe that you have on. 70 16 personally observed another person In the presence of mm m 17 underage females and we would like to ask you about your nu 36 18 observations," put the recipient on notice that you, an 41 19 yourself, are accused of criminal conduct in abusing Lem is 20 minors? 023446 21 A. Well, it puts you on notice that you're a 0234 49 22 potential, obviously, witness to this and then therefore 0234» 23 you could have potential Involvement. ri ms 24 Let me give you a ample illustration. It'll 0134n 25 take about 20 seconds. If somebody says — ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331.4400 *3636 man, 023611 cesso ensin 013142 07350 023151 012354 10 3357 10 02 33711 011310 12 623402 13 caw. 14 costo 15 comer 16 on. iz 17 onsu 18 02x%19 inn la 20 omen 21 011621 22 nsi 23 013133 24 011633 25 270 1 In the context of this case, to say, you have 2 been observed in the -- in -- by numerous 3 witnesses in the presence of a convicted sex 4 offender and underage girls, and we would like to 5 talk to you about those observations, I think 6 that puts you on notice that you're in -- In -- 7 in jeopardy of -- of criminal activity, 8 particularly when you combine that with the fact 9 that there Is a duty to report child abuse In many states in this country, including the State of Florida. And so that if those observations were such that they would give rise to a reasonable Inference that sex abuse was -- of children was going on and you'd be obligated to report it, as I think Mr. DershovAtz conceded yesterday, yes, yOu -- I think that puts you on notice that -- that those kinds of things are being alleged. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. So, first, the letter Itself, the letter from Mr. Scarola simply says, you were -- you were personally -- you personally observed Jeffrey Epstein in the presence of underaged females, correct? A. Correct. Q. It does not say, you witnessed abuse of any ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331.4400 023416 013451 02)461 023600 011301 021661 023609 0236* 9 niem 10 023000 11 awn 12 (emu. 13 atm 14 ens 15 nu 16 ens% 17 02x37 18 on 19 011023 20 023214 21 *011 22 ann. 23 013521 24 02x02 25 269 1 Q. Welt, let me back up. My first Question, 2 though, if you can answer the Question. 3 MR. SCAROLA: No. I'm sorry. The witness is 4 entitled to complete his response. If you 5 don't -- if you believe it to be unresponsive, 6 you can move to strike it, but he's entitled to 7 complete it. 8 MR. SIMPSON: He -- HR. SCAROLA: So go ahead and complete your response. MR. SIMPSON: Can we have a -- you can give an explanation, but a yes or no with an explanation. MR. SCAROLA: You already got that. Could we now have the completion of the response? THE WITNESS: Here's the simple illustration I think makes it pretty clear: If somebody says, we have observed you in the presence of a kilo of cocaine, we would like to question you about the presence -- about your observations of this, that doesn't directly state that you are a drug user or a drug dealer, but it certainly puts you on notice that you're associated with that criminal activity and somebody is going to Question you about it. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954)331-4400 271 032637 1 minor; we have reason to believe you observed abuse of 02 3631 2 minors? 023630 3 A. If those words do not appear there, but come nun 4 on, we — we know -- we know in the context of this 02 n.. 5 case, when somebody is asking to take a deposition about no 6 your observation of young girls, they weren't talking 02 x30 7 about preparations for birthday parties. They were 02037 8 talking about sexual abuse of children. 02306 9 And that was what Mr. Dershowltx was going to mew 10 be asked about. And he did not -- he did not take that 02 x02 11 opportunity to try to clear the record; Instead, we are, 013305 12 you know, here today, because among other reasons, he — he -- he wasn't deposed then. Q. I want I want to comment. I'm Just a little bit non -- nonplussed, so I want to come back to this again. 0131 21 17 A. Well, I'm -- I have to tell you, I'm a little 023:23 18 bit nonplussed that somebody would say that letter 02 37 24 19 doesn't put you on notice that you're potentially 02 37, 20 involved In criminal activity. I mean, come on. 023/30 21 Q. I -- my question wasn't potentially involved ken= 22 in criminal activity. We disagree about whether it does onyx 23 that. 013117 24 A. Okay. I think It does. 0217 n 25 Q. I suspect you -- that's how you read it? 02 37 03 13 023112 14 0132+I 15 023221 16 ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331.4400 10/20/2015 01:08:15 PM Page 268 to 271 of 335 30 of 46 sheets EFTA01116806 272 CZ 37 40 1 A. I think it puts you on notice in the context ea 370 2 of a country which has required people to report the C2 n4, 3 sexual abuse of children, and somebody wants to talk to 07370 4 you about your observations of a convicted sex offender OW C2 5 with underage girls, that that's going to be one of the subjects that's going to be discussed, yes. Q. My question was -- my Initial question was: Does -- do the statements in this letter put the reader on notice that you, personally, are accused of abusing oraii. 10 minors yourself, not that you have In some knowledge or 0224 0 11 evidence that someone else did it, but that you, 022 12 yourself, did it; Is that a way to give fair notice? °nem 13 A. Well, in fair notice in what context? You Gin 14 know, is he on notice that a lawsuit is going to be 02,1 3' 15 filed the next day? 023832 16 Simply from that piece of -- that letter :emu 17 alone, they are on notice, you know I mean, I think CO MP 18 that puts you on notice that there are serious ea a 4! 19 allegations afoot and it would be in your best interest 02 MO 20 if you hadn't done anything, to show up, attend a CC Ma, 21 deposition, let all the facts come out so that everybody 02 3.0 22 can know them. COM./ 23 Q. Would you agree that accusing someone of 02 ao 5. 24 themselves abusing a minor is different than accusing CC CO 0) 25 someone of having knowledge that somebody else did it? ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954)331-4400 OW Ca 6 Ol 31 It 7 3.01 8 07,40; 9 274 024003 1 his criminal associates were doing. And he thought that 024005 2 Mr. Dershowitz would have information and was trying to 02401 3 collect that. 4 Now, whether the — the -- the tentades of 024010 5 the organization would extend so that they wrapped 04043 6 around Mr. Dershowitz himself, I guess was the subject Orate 7 that — that Mr. Scarola, I am assuming, was hoping to NNW 8 explore. But Mr. Dershowitz prevented that opportunity. 024022 9 Q. And Mr. Dershowitz, you knew, had been woe 10 non 11 Own 12 bum 13 sraus 14 wen 15 nee 16 MOO 17 02047 18 an 19 nue 20 ariou 21 cuss 22 noel 23 ewes 24 0241% 25 Mr. Epstein's attorney, correct? A. Correct. Q. And you knew, just as we have seen here today with multiple assertions of privilege, that he could not testify about anything he learned as an attorney' A. He could testify, and the letter itself says, we are not going to ask you about any communications; we are going to ask you about observations of sex abuse by a convicted sex offender, and your personal knowledge of that. That would not have erased in the — and Mr. Scoreless a very good attorney, and I'm sure all of his questions that we saw the last couple of days would have been very narrowly focused on observations about what this criminal organization was doing. Q. And so to the bottom line Is that your view, your sworn testimony, this letter of August 23rd, 2011, ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331.4400 02 34 03 1 02 43% 2 web 3 Neu 4 N MI? 5 wets 6 co *It 7 02.30 8 02242. 9 02 MN 10 (UM 11 man 12 NM] 13 ow.= 14 con 15 ern 16 ewe 17 ce*ii 18 mine 19 ten 20 ten 21 ream 22 muss 23 masa 24 02001 25 273 A. Yes. Q. And to accuse someone of abusing a minor Is a serious, serious accusation of criminal conduct, personal criminal conduct, not just failing to report somebody else, but you, yourself, are abusing people? A. Oh, yeah. MR. SCAROLA: Are you suggesting that that's not criminal conduct? MR. SIMPSON: I'm -- I'm my question stands. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. What is the answer to that? A. It Is a very serious charge, I agree. That's why we are all here today. O. Okay. And -- and if you wanted to put someone on fair notice that they are accused themselves of being a sex offender, a criminal who has abused children, wouldn't you tell them that? A. That's a speculative question because that letter was designed to try to collect information about an international sex trafficking organization. And so as to -- you know, I'm not going to speculate as to why Mr. Scarola wrote it that way. But my sense, based on the public record Is, that he was trying to get as much information as he could about what Jeffrey Epstein and ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331.4400 275 ants 1 put Mr. Dershowitz, Professor Dershowitz, on fair notice 024121 2 that he was being accused of being a sex offender amiss 3 himself? 054320 4 A. We — we have gone over this. I think it put now 5 him on fair notice that there were serious questions 024431 6 being raised about what he knew about this criminal 0241421 7 organization, what the potential criminal responsibility NON 8 he had for failure to report sexual abuse of a child, as fen 9 well as other possibilities. OMEN 10 MR. SIMPSON: I'm going to move to stoke as 02410311 nonresponsive. aura 12 BY MR. SIMPSON: 024124 13 Q. My question Is a very narrow one, whether sure 14 this letter, in your opinion, under oath, fairly put non 15 Mr. -- Professor Dershowitz on notice that he himself 024112 16 was accused of abusing minors. ono 17 A. Again, that's a vague question. I've tried moo 18 to give the best answer I can. That was certainly a wool 19 potential area of questioning. I think that puts him on woe 20 notice that it would have been in his best interest to nag 21 appear to answer those questions. 021214 22 MR. SIMPSON: I'm going to object to the 024214 23 answer again as nonresponsive. 024216 24 or MR. SIMPSON: nu,. 25 0. It's a really simple question. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331.4400 31 of 46 sheets Page 272 to 275 of 335 10/20/2015 01:08:15 PM EFTA01116807 024220 1 02 4223 2 024226 3 nen 4 oxen 5 014132 6 024236 7 02463? 8 276 Does that letter put Mr. Dershowitz on fair notice that he's accused of being a sex offender himself? MR. SCAROLA: Objection. Repetitious. To the extent that you can improve upon the answer, you can improve upon the answer. If you can't, all you need to do Is say that. THE WITNESS: I -- and I'll try to -- 02e» 9 obviously, I want to be responsive -- ten 10 BY MR. SIMPSON: 0261.34 11 O. Let -- let me ask -- moo 12 A. -- to your question. taun 13 Q. I'll ask you a different question. itt2 .1 14 A. I don't think that's a yes or no question nun 15 because of -- of you're including vague terms like fair 024245 16 notice and and those sorts of things. So -- but go rear, 17 ahead and ask your questions and I'll — I mean, go 02420 18 ahead. 024201 19 Q. You're a former federal Judge? 024255 20 A. Right. man 21 Q. A former Supreme Court law -- law clerk? ray Si 22 A. Yes. cross 23 Q. Professor at a law school? ono 24 A. Yes. 024201 25 Q. Reading as -- reading the language of this ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331.4400 024417 1 can 2 024454 3 424452 4 024444 5 04446 6 014504 7 014504 8 ozesil 9 onso 10 04512 11 oats 12 02 4525 13 024124 14 0246» 15 024524 16 ma= 17 0245 0 18 0245» 19 4,.s 1. 20 C26530 21 024532 22 ens» 23 024542 24 045 45 25 278 having abused minors? Can you answer that: Yes or no? A. No. I think a yes-or-no answer would be misleading, given the context of this case. Q. You referred in your earlier testimony to -- strike that for a moment. You referred in your earlier testimony to an article that appeared today regarding Professor Dershowitz's deposition testimony, correct? A. I don't think so. O. Okay. Are you aware that -- well, perhaps It was Miss McCawley who referred to it. Do you recall there being a reference this morning to an article being published about Professor Dershowitz's testimony? MS. McCAWLEY: Oh, I'm sorry. It was me. I objected to the extent -- only to the extent it revealed something public that had been stated In public. BY MR. SIMPSON: O. Okay. And I -- you recall that? A. Yeah, I recall the objection. I think there's an article that came out yesterday or a communication. I -- I — you know, I can't remember the -- exactly where I -- I know that I received a communication, either through publication or in some ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 279 other way from the -- from the -- you know, I became aware that there was a statement that the -- what's the name of the outfit? It's the Business Investor — MR. SCAROLA: Daily Business Review. THE WITNESS: Daily Business Review that was stating that David Boles was saying that the representations made by Mr. Dershowitz were false. MR. SCAROLA: I did just coach the witness. I apologize. THE WITNESS: Yeah. And, I'm sorry, just for the name of that, so... BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. And you -- In your earlier testimony, you referred to it -- you didn't recall the name, but you referred to it as a reputable -- A. That's right. Q. -- publication? A. That's right. That's the one we are talking about, right. Q. Right. And in that article it states: "McCawley," referring to our colleague, "later issued a statement on Boles's behalf saying, because the discussions that Mr. Boles had with Mr. Dershowitz were expressly privileged ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 CO 4) DI 277 1 letter, in your opinion, does the language itself put 024114 2 the recipient on notice that the recipient is accused of 104273 3 abusing minors himself? 074121 4 A. It puts him on notice that that is going to MO 24 5 be a potential subject of inquiry at the -- at the -- won 6 the deposition. 02 411. 7 Q. So your answer then is, yes, it puts the - 02 4222 8 the -- the person on notice; that's your reading? 02040 9 A. You're — I think you're putting words in my 024142 10 mouth. You're you're trying to ask, you know, a 02404 11 question that on the one hand, you're suggesting is couit 12 narrow, and on the other hand is broad. It -- I mean, 4,o.» 13 this is probably the simplest way to answer that 02010 14 question. eon 15 If I had gotten that letter, I would have 024352 16 said, schedule the deposition in the next 24 hours, and 024166 17 come on down here now, and I will be available for a 0543 50 18 week. That's what I would have said if I had gotten 024401 19 that letter. 02440 20 MR. SIMPSON: Move to strike as 024403 21 nonresponsive. 024402 22 BY MR. SIMPSON: inns 23 Q. Is it your testimony you can't answer yes or owe 24 no whether that letter, on its face, puts the recipient 0244 12 25 on notice that the recipient is accused himself of ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 02454? 1 4424$51 2 044» 3 024167 4 5 024001 6 024404 7 024601 8 024608 9 ox woo 10 024610 11 02 4112 12 024612 13 424413 14 024614 15 no 16 02 44 le 17 fnasio 18 024611 19 016621 20 tomn 21 in KO. 22 re.. s2 23 ton 24 war 25 024,44 10/20/2015 01:08:15 PM Page 276 to 279 of 335 32 of 46 sheets EFTA01116808 02.4 40 024443 074646 01450 026654 DDSS 024010 02 46 64 ozstm 9 024702 10 024703 11 *zoo 12 COD 13 0247:03 14 01007 15 02 47 • 16 02x42 17 024,14 18 024720 19 024723 20 02 47 24 21 0247.7. 22 0247 30 23 CI:t 47 37 24 024730 25 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 280 settlement discussions, Mr. Boles will not, at least at this time, describe what was actually said. However, Mr. Boles does state that Mr. Dershowitz's description of what was said Is not true." A. Q. A. That's the one. You read that? Yeah. I -- I learned of it -- yeah, I don't remember whether I read or how I got it, but yeah, that's the one. Q. In light of that statement by Mr. Boles, would you agree that any privilege has been waived? A. I would not. Q. A. That's -- that's a newspaper article. Q. It's a pub -- it's a quote. Let me clarity. That's a statement -- quoting a statement issued by Ms. McCawley and quoting Mr. Boles as saying, Mr. Dershowitz's description of what was said is not true, so that's a public statement by Mr. Boles saying that Mr. Dershowitz's testimony is not true; is that a waiver in your view? A. No. And that would require — I'm with -- I'm just putting you on notice, talking about notice, if you want me to, I could give you the law professor ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 282 02413 1 MR. SCAROLA: Why don't you start over again? At om 2 MR. SIMPSON: No. I Just want -- 02 40 3 MS. McCAWLEY: We disagree with wale 4 your characterization of that as a waiver. It 074410 5 was a statement that was issued in order to stop 424612 6 the waivers that Mr. Dershowitz was trying to 074:1 7 engage in, and we -- we don't agree that's a 61026 8 waiver and we will not allow any testimony 014617 9 regarding those communications. 014424 10 MR. SIMPSON: Okay. I disagree with the ervi3, 11 position and the characterization, but I just 02.443) 12 wanted to clarify on the record, I didn't have to nun 13 ask those questions again. ream 14 MR. SCAROLA: Sure. 024434 15 MS. McCAWLEY: I understand. 02402 16 MR. SIMPSON: And, obviously, our position is 0244D 17 that if it hadn't already been -- if it hadn't already been waived -- either it wasn't 02400 19 privileged or hadn't been waived, it's now 024447 20 waived. 02444? 21 THE WITNESS: And my -- Just -- 0241 22 MR. SIMPSON: I don't have a question. ram Li 23 THE WITNESS: I know, but I -- but I think roue 24 now in light of, since the record has these 02463 25 characters, I just want to put one sentence into ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 Ca 44 41 18 Stain 024741 02 47 43 074,44 024144 024IM 0247 0 0 717 40 07.475) 9 014251 10 011744 11 span 12 0247% 13 024266 14 281 1 answer as to why that's not a waiver. Off the top of my 2 head, I can start talking about that. 3 O. No. I don't -- I don't need that. 4 A. Right. That's why I just wanted to let you 5 know, so... 6 Q. But I really wanted to clarify -- and what I 7 wanted to clarify was -- 8 A. I do not -- let me just be clear, so the record is clear: I absolutely do not believe that's a waiver and I could give you an extended answer, but I know time is drawing short -- Q. All right. Q. But you -- what I want to clarify is that, 024100 15 notwithstanding that statement, you will continue to 014602 16 answer all my questions about the substance of *zoo 17 discussions with Mr. Boles; you're continuing not to on... 18 answer, you're continuing •- 014410 19 MS. McCAWLEY: Yes 20 MR. SCAROLA: You Just said you -- 0240 21 MS. McCAWLEY: -. I believe -- 024 II 22 MR. SCAROLA: -- continue to answer. man 23 MS. McCAWLEY: I'm sorry. 41244111 24 MR. SIMPSON: I'm sorry. man 25 MS. McCAWLEY: Continue not to answer. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331.4400 024417 074» 12•101 OOP 024006 024.105 0244 024010 0249 17 024,4 10 07 40 If 11 404. If 12 onto 13 026021 14 024926 15 020020 16 DO 17 eta 18 01037 19 Atom 20 0240» 21 283 1 the record, which Is: It doesn't seem to me that 2 an attorney can inject into a deposition 3 confidential settlement proceedings, have 4 somebody deny that, and then say, aha, they're no 5 longer confidential settlement proceedings, so 6 that's -- 7 MR. SIMPSON: There's no question pending. I 8 move to strike the comments. 9 THE WITNESS: Right. I just didn't want your comments to -- to reflect back on my earlier answer. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. I want to go back, Mr. Cassell, get back to yesterday's exhibits. I'm going to hand you what was marked yesterday as Cassell Exhibit Number 2, which is the joinder motion, and when you have that in front of you -- A. Got it. Q. Do you have that in front of you? A. I do. Q. All right. Would you -- find my copy of 02490 22 it -- if you would turn to page -- bottom of page 3, 02400 23 part of -- top of page 4; do you have that? 024062 24 A. Got it. 014663 25 Q. All right. I'm going to read it. Tell me If ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 33 of 46 sheets Page 280 to 283 of 335 10/20/2015 01:08:1S PM EFTA01116809 wan 1 wan 2 024016 3 0244.10 4 01500 5 025002 6 W IOU 7 CMOS 8 moor 9 nu 10 025020 11 075024 12 co son 13 coin 14 025031 15 a2103. 16 025035 17 meow 18 05041 19 021045 20 02 50 21 rireeo 22 025091 23 025044 24 snow 25 284 I've read it correctly. A. Okay. Q. -Epstein also sexually trafficked the then-minor Jane Doe" -- and that' correct? A. Yes. Q. -- "making her available for sex to politically-connected and financially-powerful people. Epstein's purposes in lending Jane Doe, along with other young girls, to such powerful people were to ingratiate himself with them for business, personal, political, and financial gain, as well as to obtain potential blackmail information." Did I read that correctly? You did. What did you mean by 'obtain potential A. Q. blackmail information'? A. Okay. Let me just double-check. Once the criminal organization had put the bait out, so to speak, to various people, and they took the bait that -- you know, I'm -- I'm speaking colloquially here. These are these are young girls who are being sexually abused. Once the criminal organization had gotten people to sexually abuse these these young girls, at that point, they had ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 285 information that they could use to blackmail those people and -- and then get favors in exchange. And that's Epstein at the head of the organization would be the one who would benefit most directly from the black -- the blackmail information. Q. And by "blackmail information," do you mean that Mr. Epstein then had information that he could threaten to disclose if the other person didn't do what Epstein asked them to do? A. Precisely. Q. As of December 30th, 2014, if Miss Roberts had access to publicity, she had exactly the same ability to blackmail people; Isn't that Due? A. Absolutely not. A billionaire has far more resources than a victim of child sex abuse, particularly one that has been forced into hiding in Australia to escape the criminal organization. So for you to suggest tha had the same ability to blackmail s Epstein Is, I think, preposterous. Q. As of -- Miss -- Miss Roberts had the same ability as Jeffrey Epstein to reveal publicly the names of the people who she says sexually abused her, as did Mr. Epstein; isn't that true? A. You're talking about physical ability to ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331.4400 025121 1 011324 2 401275 3 072231 4 02'1225 5 026220 6 OR 02 7 0124) 8 075240 9 ran 10 Interview or not? 02 $251 11 A. I wasn't sure. That's right. an 12 Q. And after December 30th, 2014, the references cent. 13 to Prince Andrew and Professor Dershowitz generated ten 14 international publicity; isn't that true? 02 SW 15 A. Okay. Which -- yes, I mean, In a general co 51 11 16 sense, I could ask which allegations, but these null 17 allegations did generate publicity, certainly. coos 18 Q. Yes. The allegations in your Joinder motion 025314 19 and Professor Dershowitz had abused 02 25. 20 en known as Jane Doe Number 3, cone 21 genera e a res orm of publicity; did it not? earn 22 A. It generated a lot of publicity, yes. COM 12 23 Q. And within days of that, you were -- you were 020 35 24 participating in attempting to arrange an interview with come 25 ABC News; isn't that true? ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954)331.4400 286 speak words. They both have the same physical ability to speak the English language, yes. Q. And, in fact, before, at least three years before December 30th, 2014, she had the ability to be quoted in an article, more than one article, in the Daily Mail in London about her experiences, correct? A. That's correct. Q. And am I correct that as of December 30th, 2014, you didn't know whether she was paid for that 0510, 1 05,0 2 coma 3 023100 4 025111 5 02 3112 6 027117 7 rile 8 C01124 9 073124 10 025124 11 02 11 it 12 13 0251m 14 cosi.> 15 (es's, 16 eon 17 0251 51 18 025152 19 cesi)0 20 025202 21 wpm 22 075212 23 0712 11 24 cent> 25 0203)0 1 021345 2 021311 3 0140 a 4 0200 5 021304 6 071250 7 025110 8 025001 9 075405 10 025400 11 025404 12 0254t. 13 02 54 75 14 025472 15 02547/ 16 025431 17 0154 32 18 02 54 24 19 max 20 02,436 21 0254 )8 22 men 23 029147 24 ozuso 25 287 A. That — within days of — the chronology is important here: The allegations were filed in this pleading on December 30th. Several days after that, Mr. Dershowitz then took to the airwaves to denounce, not only Brad and me, but -- but particularly of concern to me wa s victim of sex traffickin And, at that point, as one of — as one of her attorneys, I was looking for a way to respond to that media assault on her by Mr. Dershowitz. MR. SIMPSON: Move to strike as nonresponsive. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. Did -- within 24 hours of this pleading being filed, there was publicity about the allegations against Prince Andrew and Mr. Dershowitz -- Professor Dershowitz; isn't that correct? A. I don't know the exact time frame, but that — you know, roughly that time frame sounds about right. 0. If Mr. -- if Professor Dershowitz had never said anything, wouldn't you expect that these allegations as to Prince Andrew, in particular, and Professor Dershowitz would get substantial publicity? A. There was — there was -- ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331.4400 1W20/2015 01:08:15 PM Page 284 to 287 of 335 34 of 46 sheet EFTA01116810 288 290 023461 1 MR. SCAROLA: Excuse me. To the extent the 321613 1 Prince Andrew had sexually abused ow o 2 question calls for speculation, I object. MK 11 2 correct? muss 3 oust 4 MR. SIMPSON: No. I'm asking for his state of mind when he filed this document. 02x,3 3 026421 4 A. That was one of the allegations in here, sure. 0254M 5 THE WITNESS: There's no doubt that -- 023331 5 Q. And the allegations that Professor Dershowltz sass w 6 MR. SCAROLA: So the question is: At the men 6 had sexually abuse? 025501 7 time of the filing -- 0234 31 7 A. That's right. It was in a — what we were — germ 8 MR. SIMPSON: Please -- please don't coach one n 8 what we were starting to document and allege here was gesso 9 the witness. 4266n 9 that terrible things that Epstein's criminal asses 10 MR. SCAROLA: No, I'm not coaching him. I 033630 10 organization had done. armor 11 just want to understand the question. You're 026630 11 Q. Let me refer you to page 6 — nom 12 asking what his state of mind was at the time of 02610 12 A. Okay. now 13 filing? 0224 47 13 Q. -- of your filing. It's the first full osit. 14 MR. SIMPSON: Did he -- did he anticipate -- or son 14 paragraph. osso 15 MR. SCAROLA: Because the other question was: 071644 15 A. Yep. QM 11 16 What do you -- what's your position today. roma 16 Q. I'm going to read it. "Epstein also ens" 17 MR. SIMPSON: Mr. Scarola, really. 0236Si 17 trafficked Jane Doe Number 3 for sexual purposes to many nn,. 18 MR. SCAROLA: That's -- that's a different 02 SG S6 18 other powerful men." awls 19 question. So I just want to know which one ivory 19 A. Okay. ens" 20 you're asking. or Hp 20 Q. "Including numerous prominent American au.. 21 aim, 22 Do you want to know his state of mind then, or his state of mind today? 023700 21 02 tie 22 politicians, powerful business executives, foreign presidents, a well-known prime minister, and other world woo 23 MR. SIMPSON: I will take that as an cv sr I* 23 leaders. lane -- Epstein required lane Doe Number 3 to nine 24 objection to the form of the question. 02 4/.,s 24 describe the events that she had with these men so that now 25 a u w 25 he could potentially blackmail them? ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 (954) 331.4400 289 291 425525 1 BY MR. SIMPSON: non. I Did I read that correctly? 421427 2 Q. As of -- win' 2 A. You dld. 025527 3 MR. SCAROLA: It's a request for a ram 3 O. With respect to blackmail, the ability to arra 4 clarification of an ambiguous question. non 4 blackmail, is that the same potential we talked about a ossn 5 MR. SIMPSON: It's coaching the witness. arum 5 moment ago in your testimony? awn 6 BY MR. SIMPSON: 021722 6 A. Sure. nom 7 Q. As of -- 423732 7 Q. And you're referring there to -- nom 8 A. Yeah, I don't need any coaching. I mean... 021734 8 A. Roughly, yeah. I mean, if there's something as ism 9 Q. Let me ask the question. wow 9 that you want darified, go ahead and darify it. auss 10 our 11 As of December 30th -- that's true -- as of — 425737 10 on 11 Q. I just -- I just wanted to make sure I understand corr ctl that when ou refer that -- to 02.64» 12 A. Right -- woo 12 Epstein requirl scribe these nun 13 Q. -- we agree that's coaching. 42574/ 13 events so that he could potentially blackmail them, what atm» 14 A. -- but that wasn't coaching. That wasn't no 14 you had in mind was, Epstein wanted to know what 0314 41 15 coaching, so the suggestion that it's coaching is — is OW 12 15 these men so that he had the *MO 16 not fair. 314736 16 a y o rea en o istlose It If they didn't do 023343 17 Q. Okay. We disagree. woo 17 what he wanted them to do? wow 18 As of December 30th, 2014, did you anticipate woo 18 A. That was — that was part of It, yes. 471612 19 that naming Prince Andrew in a public filing as having ono 19 Q. And isn't it true you could have one a 20 abuse otid generate substantial 423104 20 accomplished -- in terms of furthering 023402 21 publicity? 02560? 21 gal interests, you could have accomplished new 22 A. "Substantial" is a debatable word, but 02 SS 10 22 same thing by saying Epstein also Note 23 certainly, it's going to generate publicity, yes. 023414 23 trafficked -- trafficked Jane Doe Number 3 for sexual nal° 24 Publicity about the allegations. nun 24 purposes to other well-known men, period? emu 25 Q. YeS. And -- and the allegations are that cosia 25 A. No, I don't think so. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 (954) 331.4400 35 of 46 sheets Page 288 to 291 of 335 10/20/2015 01:08:15 PM EFTA01116811 292 794 023816 1 Q. Okay. You felt that it furthered her legal MN 30 2 interests to specify American politicians, powerful nu xi 3 business executives, foreign presidents, a well-known m%a 4 prime minister and other world leaders; that was your -- ersi 0 5 you — you believe that furthered her legal Interest? 026841 6 A. Yes. duo 7 Q. Old you also anticipate that that would town 8 titillate the PreSS, so to speak, that there would be a eau 9 lot of speculation on who these people are? 023852 10 A. That wasn't the — that wasn't the focus sus. 11 of the — those comments, no. nu 12 O. You said it wasn't the focus. Did you 07%37 13 realize it would happen? sun 14 A. Sure. I mean, this was a case that had mum 15 been already — this litigation had been going on at ova: 16 that point for seven years and lots of people were resew 17 following IL This is — this case is one of the most woo 18 egregious examples of a violation of Crime Victims' tossu 19 Rights in the history of this country. 4050%3 20 And so against that context, yes, there were COW% 21 going to be people interested in every word that was 0760111 22 going Into this pleading. Whether we had gone more 025410 23 broadly or more narrowly than what we did, people were 0750/3 24 going to be interested in this. one n 25 Q. And as of December 30th of 2014, Miss Roberts ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 010431 1 010432 2 wain 3 03031 4 03%37 5 030437 6 030633 7 CO C633 8 03.1601 9 010111 10 ores 11 mesa 12 wens 13 mesa 14 no. 15 mesa 16 woo 17 won.? 18 Gin 19 COOS MI 20 030103 21 030302 22 roses 23 woos 24 030308 25 break. I appreciate that. Q. Okay. MR. SCAROLA: Could you just read back the last question for me? I just want to orient myself as to where we are. Thank you. (Thereupon, a portion of the record vas read by the reporter.) MR. SCAROLA: Yeah, I didn't I think the answer was -- THE WITNESS: I guess I was mid-sentence, so think I will just stick with the same word, preposterous. And one •- one thing that occurred to me during the break, in the context of this case, is that there had been allegations that Epstein was part of the -• the sex trafficking organization, had video cameras mounted throughout many of his -- his mansions. And so, whereas a young woman could say, or a young gal could say, look, I was a victim of sex abuse, people would attack her; people wouldn't believe her, that unless she had, you know, corroborating evidence, people would say, well, look, it didn't happen. And so Epstein had managed to collect apparently a lot of videotapes and other kinds of ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 07%31 07-14 02513.8 1 had the same ability to disclose who these individuals 2 were publidy, as did Jeffrey Epstein, correct, because 3 she had personal knowledge of who they were? 4 A. She had the ability to speak the words, but, 0 26t.17 5 again, I think it's preposterous to say that a victim of costa 6 sex trafficking has the same power as the sex trafficker on 7 to disdose information. roses. 8 For exampleauld be ream 9 attacked, and I think as we were talking about 073054 10 yesterday, we have seen evidence of the kind of attack cases? 11 that powerful people can mount against the victims of wow 12 sex trafficking. So to say that the young women in sex 030004 13 trafficking schemes have the same power as their 0)0007 14 traffickers to do this — I'm sorry. I'm going to have moil 15 to take a break. w es u 16 THE VIDEODRAPHER: We are going off the video 0)0314 17 record, 11:32 a.m. 0101 I4 18 (Thereupon, a recess was taken.) 03 04 •4 19 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are back on the video n enc. 20 record, 11:36 a.m. m%2. 21 BY MR. SIMPSON: man 22 010421 23 030420 24 CON 30 25 293 Q. Had you finished your answer, Mr. Cassell? A. I think I had. Q. Okay. Thank you. Thank you for letting me take a ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 030311 030114 0330 15 030318 030318 030.20 030177 030177 295 1 information that would have been -- given him the 2 ability to make the blackmail kinds of charges 3 that the girls that he was trafficking would -- 4 would not have had the ability to do. 5 BY MR. SIMPSON: 6 O. Mr. Cassell, didn't you testify yesterday 7 that any videotapes from Mr. Epstein's house had been 8 destroyed? 030120 9 A. I — when I used the word "destroyed," I town 10 probably should have been more precise. They had been own 11 concealed from law enforcement, is what! meant That town 12 when Palm Beach Police Department went up to the Epstein 030137 13 mansion, they found surveillance cameras and other 030541 14 cameras. I can't remember exactly where the cameras 030534 15 were, but they found surveillance cameras, and when they tour 16 looked for the tapes associated with those cameras, I 030060 17 used the word "destroyed"; and as I say, I probably 030160 18 should have said they were missing. And so they were ono 19 never able to locate those -- those missing videotapes. wens 20 Q. So as of December 30th of 2014, to your 01.701 21 knowledge, there were no videotapes available? noun 22 A. There were no videotapes available to law 030203 23 enforcement or to Brad and his pro bono crime victim 030103 24 attorneys to help document our case. We were trying to 000712 25 get those and we are continuing to try to get those, ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331.4400 10/20/2015 01:08:15 Pei Page 292 to 295 of 335 36 of 46 sheets EFTA01116812 296 298 nor is 1 but, obviously, Epstein and his criminal associates have on 1 intended to be a direct quote? 11101/0 2 had the ability to — to destroy the evidence that's 00034 2 MR. SIMPSON: Back up. 010721 3 been — that we have been trying to gather. nu 3 BY MR. SIMPSON: 010711 4 Q. And in -- in your answer a couple of nom 4 Q. What is your understanding of Judge Marra's own 5 questions -- 031041 5 ruling with respect to these allegations about Professor non 6 A. I - I'm sorry. I shouldn't say "destroyed." 01144. 6 Dershowitz and Prince Andrew? run 7 They have been able to conceal would probably be a more 0)0344 7 A. That they were premature. 03 0/ 30 8 accurate term, the — the evidence that we are trying to mins 8 Q. That's your understanding of his order? 030733 9 gather. onoa 9 A. Yes. 030733 10 Q. In my answer -- in my answer -- mono 10 Q. Okay. wen, 11 A. Yeah. anew 11 A. And I — maybe I should — I see some 030733 12 Q. -- in the question and answer, your answer to mod 12 skepticism there, so let me explain why I think those 030131 13 my question a couple ofquestions o ou talked about 03100) 13 allegations — 03 07 0 14 whether Mr. Epstein a have the 03 100. 14 Q. Yeah. Well, we can pull -- worm 15 same or equal ability to disc ose -- 031001 15 A. -- are appropriate. wane 16 A. Right. 011001 16 Q. -- we will pull out the order itself -- wen, 17 Q. -- what these prominent politicians, 031.01 17 A. Sure. 03010 18 et cetera, had done, correct? on 18 Q. -- at the appropriate time, but first, your ono 34 19 A. Correct. ea loos 19 understanding Is that the Judge didn't find that those 03 OSS 20 noir 21 a Without attempting to make any comparison, you would agree, would you not, that as of December 03 low 20 031013 21 allegations, at the time they were made, were so irrelevant to the case, that they should be stricken 030401 22 30th, 2014, Miss Roberts had the ability to name the 03101S 22 from the public record? roam 23 names of the people who are referenced in this document? wren 23 A. In that pleading at that time, remember, we 0300,0 24 A. Physical ability, yes. ea nn 24 had in our — our brief — let me explain the — the one I, 25 Q. And -- well, let me ask this: You say a co an 25 nine reasons why we thought that those allegations were ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 3314400 (954) 3314400 297 299 011417 1 weer-known prime minister. Is that Prime Minister town 1 relevant to the case, since I think your question calls 010022 2 Barak? colon 2 for that. 010022 3 ow, 4 MS. McCAWLEY: I'm gonna instruct you not to rev communications you had in 4121 3 03 1031 4 Q. Are those the nine reasons you gave yesterday? 030024 5 an 6 Wit e specifics of her cou e Individuals. 031031 5 neon 6 A. No, I didn't have a chance to. Q. Are they the nine reasons that are set forth 030031 7 BY MR. SIMPSON: oi SO >A 7 .in your -- in your brief? one rz 8 Q. Is one of the other -- one of the powerful 011.36 8 A. They are. Those are the nine reasons that 0300 34 9 business executives, Les Wexner? wax 9 are set forth In the brief. NOB )7 10 MS. McCAWLEY: Again, same instruction. 031031 10 Q. Okay. And -- and Judge Marra had that brief Ince a 11 BY MR. SIMPSON: *ion 11 in front of him when he held that, these allegations omen 12 Q. Okay. Now, you mentioned yesterday -- well, w.0 .s 12 were so not relevant to the issues before the court, Gm n 13 a moment ago, you testified that these -- In your view, 0110.. 13 that they would be stricken and not part of the public 0301.11 14 these allegations about other powerful men furthered noon 14 record? 03004 15 Miss Roberts' legal position in the case, correct? woo 15 A. At that time, In that particular pleading — anew 16 A. Yes. roNS4 16 I think you're mischaracterizing Judge Marra's ruling In omen 17 Q. And it's also your position, I assume, that wilco 17 its entirety. He specifically said that the allegations 030310 18 the allegations regarding Professor Dershowltz and 03 ,+01 18 could be reasserted, If they were relevant to issues 030014 19 Prince Andrew furthered Miss Roberts' legal position; is 03 330. 19 that are — that were coming up. And so, in following norm 20 that right? 031107 20 that ruling, we went to the U.S. Attorney's Office, 030111 21 A. Absolutely. on lo 21 propounded discovery requests and said, look, we believe nor PI 22 Q. Does the fact that Judge Marra struck those 03 t113 22 you're sitting on information that Dershowitz was, you 030124 23 allegations as impertinent, scandalous, and completely rums 23 know, connected with the -- with the criminal 030930 24 Irrelevant to the case, cause you to reassess? 031'17 24 trafficking here; we would like you to produce those 01032 25 MR. SCAROLA: Excise me. Is that -- is that 031110 25 documents. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 (954) 331.4400 10/20/2015 01:08:15 PM 37 of 46 sheets Page 296 to 299 of 335 EFTA01116813 300 302 021120 1 And rather than say, My, we don't have any 031341 1 the United States Attorney for the Southern District of sally 2 such documents, the U.S. Attorney's Office gave us the Oen 46 2 Florida to represent victims, correct? rens 3 response indicating, to our view, that there were such 0)1344 3 A. Yes. Through the — through the NPA, yeah, 031122 4 documents, and as you know, since you're one of until 4 there was an apparatus that led to his selection. 011124 5 Mr. Dershowitz's attorneys, we have drafted a pleading 0113S4 5 Q. And does that answer reflect holding the U.S. nun 6 now to try and collect that information, that law 031401 6 Attorney for the Southern District of Florida in that Gall a 7 enforce — federal law enforcement agencies have Num 7 office in high regard? Gan,. 8 collected, and — and to figure out the appropriate way 031404 8 A. Sure. 031142 9 to litigate that so that we can get that information and 031401 9 Q. Do you contend that at the time the United 011144 10 move forward with the case. 011411 10 States Attorney for the Southern District of Honda 031116 11 That's just one example of -- of how the rotor 11 negotiated the NPA, they knew that Professor Dershowitz, or Jr,. 12 allegations, if they were premature at that point, are 031420 12 himself, had been involved in abuse of minors? iniru 13 no longer going to be premature as the case moves along. 0314n 13 A. I don't know exactly what Information they own 14 Q. Is It or is it not your understanding that 031427 14 had. I do know that we have been propounding discovery 031201 15 Judge Marra ruled that the allegations in this pleading roux 15 requests on all of these subjects, including 011204 16 in front of you were so irrelevant to the pleading in ., ,.n 16 Professor Dershowitz's involvement, when the U.S. 03, 04 17 which they were stated, that they should be stricken 031435 17 Attorney knew. They are asserting privilege over that. 0.1217 18 from the public record? 031437 18 I would wish they would waive the privilege or at least Dun 19 A. In that particular pleading at that 021430 19 provide the information to pro bono crime victims' was 20 particular time, that's right. 43314o 20 attorneys that they have, so we can get to the bottom of 031221 21 Q. Does that cause you to reassess, in any way, routs 21 this. aux. 22 having filed this document? 01 ,..1 22 But there have been, you know, a nonstop 011223 23 A. Well, I think certainly as a tactical matter, 031447 23 series of assertions of privilege and other barriers 031224 24 we should have reserved the — the allegations for -- 0314441 24 Interposed against us in this case, and I think 011231 25 for another motion. I - I think that's -- you know, eau>, 25 Inappropriately so, and — and we have been arguing that ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 301 303 011234 1 certainly, with the — you're -- now, we are now sort of aims 1 now for a number of years. 03 In. 2 speculating, would we have done something different if 03,4m 2 Q. Would you agree with me that if the United 0312M 3 we knew that? And the answer to that is, sure, we would 0313011 3 States Attorney's Office had been aware that Professor Nun 4 have tried to do something that Judge Marra thought was ii nu 4 Dershowitz had engaged in sexual misconduct with minors, 031244 5 the appropriate way to handle it, so... 0 no 5 or himself had observed Mr. Epstein do so, that it would 031216 6 Q. And Judge Marra also reminded counsel of OD 44 .2 6 have been improper and unethical for them to let Mr. — 05120 7 their Rule 11 obligations; didn't he? 031312 7 Professor Dershowlez negotiate the terms of the NPA with 011251 8 A. That's right. Yeah. ran io 8 them? 011253 9 Q. And did it cause you to question, not wan 9 A. If they had direct personal knowledge of co use 10 tactics, but whether you were acting properly in filing oa nxi 10 that, sure. I mean, the — the -- but the realities are cal3.00 11 this? 021423 11 a little bit more complicated in that Professor 031340 12 MR. SCAROLA: Excuse me. I -- nal. 12 Dershowitz, over the last couple of days as 031302 13 MR. SIMPSON: I'm just asking if it caused 03027 13 frequently -- has frequently used the word "continuum," 011303 14 him to reassess. ouzo 14 and so if they were certain of that, it absolutely would 011304 15 MR. SCAROLA: I understand what you're 031031 15 have — would have been unethical. won 16 asking, and you're asking him about his mental vain, 16 The question Is: Well, what if they had a min, 17 processes in connection with pending litigation. 0 ISIS 17 suspicion or what if — you know, a reasonable suspicion Ingo 18 That's work product. I instruct you not to 03 ID as 18 or a possible suspicion. Those are the kinds of 031313 19 answer that question. co iss 19 dimensions that you've got to, you know, take into anti 20 BY MR. SIMPSON: in isu 20 account in the real world about, you know, what they .11. won 21 Q. All right. You testified yesterday that one ',nu 21 what they would have done. to 1719 22 reason that you found the filing of the complaint on 03 IS SO 22 I mean, it seems pretty dear, for example, in ill? 23 behalf of Jane Doe 102, who is-03 VS S2 23 that at some point, you know, later on, they got a black a I> 56 24 the -• Bob Josefsberg and -- and why that was Gann 24 book in which Professor Dershowitz's name had been oaun 25 significant was that Bob Josefsberg had been selected by to is se 25 circled. Now, what they did with that information, I -- ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331.4400 10/20/2015 01:08:1S PM Page 300 to 303 of 335 38 of 46 sheets EFTA01116814 304 enteco 1 I don't know. 03 140 2 Q. And what they did with the fact that Courtney 03 1404 3 Love and Donald Trump were circled, you don't know also, 03 403 4 correct? o tea 5 A. That's right. Fair point. 01 'sw 6 Q. But somehow It's suspicious as to one to 7 Mr. Dershowitz, but not as to anyone else? Oa lea 8 MR. SCAROLA: Objection. Argumentative. co xi, 9 THE WITNESS: And I'm -- I'm glad to argue on Olt , 4 10 that point, let me, because they -- Cl lc '4 11 MR. SIMPSON: I'll withdraw the question. man 12 THE WITNESS: All right. Because I would (*tea 13 have a -- oleic 14 MR. SIMPSON: Let Oatc$: 15 THE WITNESS: -- a substantial argument on mare 16 that. Omni() 17 MR. SIMPSON: I -- I will withdraw the war, 18 question. 03 16 n 19 BY MR. SIMPSON: 01%24 20 Q. With respect, again, to the $6 le 21 MR. SCAROLA: And I'll withdraw the Or. 12 22 objection. 03 16)2 23 MR. SIMPSON: Thank you. 03 1.1.3 24 BY MR. SIMPSON: was 25 Q. At the time that you filed this joinder ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 306 03 I/ 50 1 certainly believe I have a good-faith basis, along with nay 2 my co-counsel, to explore that subject, and try to see oi leo 3 how someone who is fifth in line to the British Throne 03 IOW 4 might have been able to use the contacts and power that roam 5 he has to influence a -- a -- a disposition in this -- es nis 6 in the Crime Victims' Rights Act case that it would have awe 7 been favorable to one of his friends and potentially colon 8 favorable to himself. men 9 Q. And -- and you have that view, mesa 10 notwithstandng that the government had represented they non 11 have no record of that? wino 12 A. They didn't -- no, no, no, no. Let's not — nun 13 not -- let's not slip and try to get me to admit nee 14 something that is not what the record reflects. The tattle 15 government said they did not have documents. They did SI WO 16 not say that they didn't have any information along pea 17 those lines. $111441 18 To the contrary: They asserted a whole 03 110 19 series of privileges every time we tried to got nun 20 information along these lines. So the fact that they 031440 21 didn't have a letter, signed Prince Andrew, saying, num 22 please do the best you can for this convicted sex 031134 23 offender is one thing. That's the request for loins 24 production of documents. coup 25 But they never said that they - they --that ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 307 nem 1 something along these lines had never happened and, to 03 1903 2 the contrary, we were faced with assertions of privilege now 3 over roughly, if 1 remember correctly, about 10,000 cones 4 pages of documents where a whole host of privileges were nun 5 being asserted. Oiler/ 6 Q. Do you think it's credible that the United 03 1111 7 States Attorney's Office would be discussing an /IPA with 03 1120 8 a member of the British Royal Family? cairn 9 A. Not directly, but there certainly are now 10 possibilities of surrogates. I -- my -- somebody who is own 11 that powerful certainly wouldn't go out at it directly. mita 12 What they would probably do Is try to find the best wen 13 lawyers they could around the United States and -- and, 0/1913 14 you know, and some of the, you know, big-named lawyers coins 15 and try to bring them in there to — to work a deal. 0119 34 16 That's, I think, how, you know, we're -- you're wee 17 asking -- your question is asking for speculation and ono 18 I'm saying that -- that based on, how would you wires 19 Influence a deal In an American criminal justice system? nun 20 You go try to get the best defense lawyers you could and most 21 see -- you know -- you know, figure out which political 0x,44. 22 party was in power; and try to get people who are mew 23 well-connected to that political party, things like warm 24 that. mere 25 305 03 so 1 motion, Exhibit 2, you knew that the United States a)* u 2 AttOrney'S Office had denied having any contact -- any w an 3 documents reflecting any contact with Prince Andrew; mall 4 isn't that In*? 03%0 5 A. They had - there were — there were various irs. 6 discovery requests that had been propounded, and I think was 7 with regard to one, they had denied, and my recollection a art 8 Is with regard to another, where there had been an co ma 9 assertion of privilege. aim 10 Q. Is it not true, that before December 30th, min 11 2014, in response to a request asking the government: 03 17.,s 12 Are there any documents reflecting contact with -- by mum 13 Prince Andrew regarding the NPA, the government anti 14 represented, there were none? tome 15 A. That with regard to the -- you're talking roux 16 about RFPs, request for production of documents, I 03 12 17 believe that's -- I believe that's correct wan 18 O. And on December 30th, 2014, knowing that, you la IT 36 19 named Prince Andrew in this motion, correct? 03 17 40 20 A. Correct. mini 21 Q. And is it your testimony that you believe 03 11 40 22 that Prince Andrew somehow attempted to influence the aria 23 negotiations of an NPA in the United States as to souse 24 Mr. Epstein' otos, 25 A. I don't have direct evidence of that, but I ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 So that's the way that I think somebody might ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 39 of 46 sheets Page 304 to 307 of 335 10/20/2015 01:08:15 PM EFTA01116815 032001 1 0330 04 2 037005 3 032000 4 033009 5 01x40 6 03x14 7 %V% 8 02x72 9 moat 10 0320/7 11 012077 12 man 13 03x30 14 012030 IS 032034 16 nal 17 03 2031 18 031041 19 032041 20 032043 21 032041 22 032003 23 03104 24 0320% 25 308 have gone about trying to — to put pressure for a — a favorable plea deal. Q. And that's what you Just referred to as speculation, correct? A. Well, your question said: Well, how would they go do this? And I -- I -- I gave you my answer as to how I think somebody could well do that, yes. Q. And -- and your pleading doesn't allege how someone would do it; it alleges that they did it; isn't that correct? A. Did what? Q. Let me -- let me rephrase it. A. No. I - I - the — Q. I -- I withdraw the question. A. Yeah. Q. We only have about ten minutes here. There are a couple of things that I -- A. Sure. Absolutely. Q. -- wanted to get before we -- we will come back to these when we resume. We have a lot more questions. A. Great. I look forward to it. MR. SIMPSON: I'm going to ask the reporter to mark as Exhibit -- what are we up to -- 6, Exhibit 6, a document bearing Bates stamp numbers ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331.4400 00222' 1 tritit 2 032200 3 0372 35 4 01%35 5 037242 6 037245 7 03724/ 8 032251 9 032260 10 03 2204 11 ay.. 12 carte 13 01 2302 14 032303 15 ware. 16 on% 17 032304 18 onto 19 031110 20 03%01 21 11) 23 01 22 0321n 23 032325 24 032320 25 310 know — I can't recall sitting here today whether Nightline, is that an ABC program or NBC or -- or some other network Q. If you look at the exhibit, the e-mail in the second -- the bottom half of the first page, it has her e-mail address. Does that -- eabc.com? A. Yeah, yeah, yeah. That's good. Thank you. Q. So ABC. So in this e-mail on January 4th of 2015, you told Miss Jesko of CBS News (sic] that -- MS. McCAWLEY: ABC. I'm sorry. You said CBS. MR. SIMPSON: I'm sorry. THE WITNESS: There you go. MS. McCAWLEY: Now, we are really confused. MR. SIMPSON: I'm sorry. Let me start again, and thank you. MS. McCAWLEY: Sure. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. In this e-mail on January 4th, 2015, you told Miss Jesko of ABC News, quote: I represent, along with Brad Edwards in Florida, the young woman who was sexually abused by Prince Andrew and Alan Dershowitz, period, close quote. Have I quoted that correctly? A. Q. You have. So is it fair to say that in this e-mail, you ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 309 03 21 01 I BE-510 through -514. 032101 2 (Cassell's I.D. Exhibit No. 6 - series of 0121 01 3 e-mails, Bates numbered BE-510 - -514 was marked for 032115 4 identification.) win 5 BY MR. SIMPSON: 032119 6 Q. I will give that to the witness. And to 033130 7 identify the document further, It's a series of e-mails, 0321 30 8 the most -- the latest one in date being at the top, 03 23 .0 9 which appears to be an e-mail from Paul Cassell to Jacqueline S. Jesko on Sunday, January 4th, 2015 at can 4s 11 12:48 p.m. 0321 5412 A. Right 022151 13 Q. My first question is whether you, in fact, 032137 14 sent this e-mail that -- that this -- had this exchange 032202 15 of e-mails with Miss Jesco? onza 16 A. Yes. onyx 17 O. And Miss Jesko -- who is Miss Jesko? 032201 18 A. She works for -- which -- which — oh, o 19 Nightline. She works for Nightline, yes. 0372.5 20 Q. So she's with ABC News? ci322., 21 A. I believe that's right, yes. fa II I, 22 Q. And -- cans 23 A. I mean, I — I can't remember. The network 10 an 24 wasn't significant to me, but she's with the Nightline 03 2221 25 program. I knew that was a major program. I don't ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 03 21.14 10 032336 1 017131 2 017137 3 0111111 4 00%0 5 03/742 6 ton« 7 ono 8 10203 9 311 have told ABC News that Mr. -- Professor Dershowitz, in fact, had abuser A. No. I think it says that I'm the lawyer who Is representing someone who has — has made those allegations. Q. That's how you read this e-mail? Yes. In the e-mail you identified Miss Roberts as: A. Q. "The young woman who was sexually abused by 03%51 10 Prince Andrew and Alan Dershowitz." That doesn't read to you as a statement that she was abused? A. In context, I think it was understood that I was the attorney representing her with that claim. MR. DERSHOWITZ: Move on. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. Who -- THE WITNESS: I'm sorry. What was that? Who -- who was that? MR. SIMPSON: Who is speaking? THE WITNESS: I heard somebody say "move on" or something. Could somebody identify themselves, please? Did I -- MR. SIMPSON: In any event, I -- I will move on. 03%% 11 03 24 40 12 032401 13 032403 14 03 74 14 15 03 74 14 16 03 34 14 17 a2.15 18 0314 15 19 03 34 16 20 03 24 15 21 03 2420 22 03 2423 23 012420 24 03 24 27 25 ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 10/20/2015 01:08:15 PM Page 308 to 311 of 335 40 of 46 sheets EFTA01116816 312 314 032427 1 THE WITNESS: Well -- well, who — I'm sorry. 032007 1 MR. SIMPSON: Okay. I -- onto 2 Who was that? The speaker? I want to know who ono 2 THE COURT REPORTER: I can't hear. 032432 3 is on the line here. Could somebody identify 032102 3 MR. SIMPSON: I heard It and IT -- 11i CO 204 4 themselves, please? ono 4 repeat it. 032434 5 If somebody is eavesdropping in my ono 5 MR. SCAROLA: 'It was me who said IL' 02.32 6 deposition, I would like to know who it is. 032646 6 MR. SIMPSON: "And I thought my mute 032440 7 MR. SIMPSON: No one has the call-in number oin 7 button" -4 032447 8 other than counsel and parties. 032440 8 MR. SCAROLA: "I thought my" -- 032.44 9 THE WITNESS: So -- 032303 9 MR. SIMPSON: -- "was on." 03)445 10 MR. SIMPSON: To my knowledge. ores 10 MR. SCAROLA: -- "mute button was on." 030146 11 MR. SCAROLA: Yeah, but that -- on 11 And that was Mr. Dershowitz making that 0324144 12 THE WITNESS: But who is that person? 032409 12 comment? 032447 13 MR. SCAROLA: -- that doesn't preclude 03239 13 MR. SIMPSON: Yes, it was. 032470 14 someone from sharing that call-in number. And 03 AM 14 MR. SCAROLA: Okay. Thank you. 032.10 15 it Is appropriate that anybody on the line 012412 15 MR. DERSHOWITZ: I was trying to instruct my slog 16 identify themselves. 0171314 16 attorney. woo 17 And if the people on the line refuse to 0)2614 17 MR. SCAROLA: Then we are ready to move on. 02101 18 Identify themselves, then it's our intention to me .4 18 BY MR. SIMPSON: cant. 19 cut off the line, and the people who are on,. 19 Q. Have you told any -- all right. 012407 20 authorized to be on the line can call back in. cnn 20 Putting aside counsel who are working with 0339,e 21 MR. SCOTT: I agree with that. 0)2629 21 you, and putting aside those who you identified as being ono 22 MR. SIMPSON: Could -- could the people on 0)3632 22 within the common-Interest privilege — MI/2 23 the line identify themselves? no 23 A. Right. ens n 24 MR. SCAROLA: Okay -- inns. 24 Q. -- so not those people -- 03251? 25 MR. DERSHOWITZ: Alan Dershowitz. on. 3. 25 A. Right. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331.4400 ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331.4400 313 315 on,, 1 MR. SCAROLA: -- cut it off. no 1 Q. -- have you told anyone that Professor 0323 ir 2 MS. McCAWLEY: He Just -- he Just -- oleo 2 Dershowitz abuse any other minor? 092317 3 THE WITNESS: So he -- no 3 A. No. I've — what I have tried to say is that owe 4 MR. SIMPSON: Alan Dershowitz. Anyone else? no 4 I'm representing a young woman who has made those 022424 $ MR. SCAROLA: So the only person on the line .,n.. 5 allegations. As an attorney, I'm proud to represent 042527 6 is Alan Dershowitz, and it was Mr. Dershowitz who iniii 6 her, proud to present her case in court, proud to ens2, 7 made the comment "move on"; is that correct? on 7 present arguments to whoever will listen that she's been .,a 8 MR. SIMPSON: Well, he's the only one on the aurae 8 sexually abused by various people. 092534 9 line. I know -- I've only got three minutes left on 9 Q. Okay. And you have spoken with on u 10 here. 032749 10 representatives of the News Media on the record and off ensr 11 MR. SCAROLA: Weil, I'll give you three more tens. 11 the record about this case; Isn't that -- is that not 032139 12 minutes. I want to know: Was it Mr. Dershowitz on a 12 correct? 032341 13 who made that comment "move on" because Nit 03230 13 A. Well, on the record, yes; with regard to off anso 14 wasn't, there's somebody else on the line -- 032/21 14 the record, there have been some communications that I ans.. 15 MR. WEINBERG: I -- I -- 43224 15 think now have been turned over to the — to the 032342 16 MR. SCAROLA: -- that refuses to identify on 16 defense. So I don't -- I'm not sure if there still *ma 17 themselves. on 17 remain any off the record — I suppose probably there ono 18 MR. WEINBERG: Marty Weinberg for Epstein. 012732 18 are a few, but I would -- I think most of the — what onsi 19 I've been on the line on occasion. I have a mute 032736 19 were originally off-the-record communications have now on se 20 button and have said nothing and Lust kept on 032/36 20 been provided to -- to the defense time. on ts 21 going with no statements on my end. 032241 21 Q. Mr. Cassell, Is it not true -- true, that you ax se 22 MR. DERSHOWITZ: It was me who said it. I -- 032/44 22 have spoken with reporters on what you referred to as (4)2636 23 I -- I thought my mute button was on. 032749 23 quote, background, dose quote? ono 24 THE COURT REPORTER: I can't hear. I can't 032,40 24 A. Yeah. I mean that's different than — your woo 25 hear. 03V 34 25 earlier question was off the record and on the record. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331.4400 41 of 46 sheets Page 312 to 315 of 335 10/20/2015 01:08:15 PM EFTA01116817 MIR 1 03n. 2 316 There Is an intermediate category of background information as well, and I have spoken to 03301? 1 on 2 318 your client, my client, or any Joint defense communications. You can't reveal that. ono 3 some reporters in that capacity, yes. 01*74 3 THE WITNESS: All right. So I'm going to rang 4 Q. And -- and -• and background means that it's awn 4 follow that instruction and not answer. canoe 5 not for attribution, correct? wan 5 BY MR. SIMPSON: CM i0 6 A. Right. The background means the reporter can 03)44 6 Q. With respect to the -- what's now still wan 7 use the information, but shouldn't attribute it to a own 7 Exhibit 2, the motion for limited Intervention -- on u 8 particular person. wow 8 MR. SCAROLA: Let me lust observe for the COX II 9 Q. And, in fact, you have -. 03304 9 record that it's 12:02. I don't think we used 032•10 10 A. Or let me -- let me just clarify. Some 0,3101 10 the three minutes that I said I was going to give on,' 11 time — well, background, I think, you know, we are now 0100 11 you, but we will go to 12:03 anyway. onn 12 talking about sort of — when I use the term o,, 'o 12 MR. SIMPSON: This line of questioning will row ;4 13 "background," it would generally mean that this is rain, 13 take a little -- a little time, so -- on n 14 ran, 15 something maybe that you want to investigate and see if you can confirm in other ways, but it shouldn't be Oahu 14 [truncated]