EFTA00594390

152 1 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SEVENTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR 2 BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA 3 CASE NO. CACE 15-000072 4 5 BRADLEY J. EDWARDS and PAUL G. CASSELL, 6 Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants, 7 vs. 8 9 ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ, 10 Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff. 11 12 13 14 VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF 15 PAUL G. CASSELL 16 TAKEN ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT 17 VOLUME II, PAGES 152 to 335 18 19 20 Saturday, October 17, 2015 21 8:32 a.m. - 12:14 p.m. 22 425 North Andrews Avenue 23 Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 24 25 Theresa Tomaselli , RMR ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594390 153 1 APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL 2 On behalf of the Plaintiffs: 3 SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA 4 BARNHART & SHIPLEY. P.A. BY: JOHN SCAROLA, ESQUIRE 5 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard West Palm Reach. Flprida 33409 6 Tel : Fax: 7 E-mail : 8 On behalf of 9 BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER, LLP 10 BY: SIGRID STONE McCAWLEY, ESQUIRE 401 East Las Olas Boulevard 11 Suite 1200 Fort Lau ida 33301 12 Tel : Fax: 13 E-mail : 14 On behalf of the Defendant: 15 WILEY REIN LLP 16 BY: RICHARD A. SIMPSON. ESQUIRE AND: NICOLE A. RICHARDSON. ESQUIRE 17 1776 K Street Northwest Washington 20006 18 Tel : Fax: 19 E-mail : 20 Also on behalf of the Defendant: 21 COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, P.A. 22 BY: THOMAS EMERSON SCOTT, JR. , ESQUIRE 9150 South Dadeland Boulevard 23 Dadeland Centre II - Suite 1400 Miami , Fl 24 Tel : Fax: 25 E-mail : ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594391 154 1 APPEARANCES CONTINUED 2 Telephonically on behalf of Jeffrey Epstein: 3 DARREN K. INDYKE. PLLC 4 BY: DARREN K. INDYKE, ESQUIRE 575 Lexington Avenue 5 4th Floor New York, 0022 6 Tel : 7 Also Present: 8 DON SAVOY, Videographer 9 BRADLEY J. EDWARDS ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ (Telephonically) 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594392 155 1 INDEX OF EXAMINATION 2 WITNESS PAGE 3 PAUL G. CASSELL 4 CONTINUED DIRECT EXAMINATION 160 BY MR. SIMPSON 5 6 INDEX TO EXHIBITS 7 EXHIBIT DESCRIPTION PAGE 8 9 Cassell's I.D. Exhibit No. 4 - document 203 10 produced by the witness 11 Cassell's I.D. Exhibit No. 5 - copy of 229 address book 12 Cassell's I.D. Exhibit No. 6 - series of 309 13 e-mails, Bates numbered BE-510 - -514 14 15 16 17 18 19 (Original Exhibits have been attached to the original transcript.) 20 21 22 23 24 25 ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594393 156 1 DEPOSITION OF PAUL G. CASSELL 2 Saturday, October 17, 2015 3 4 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are now on the video 5 record. Today is Saturday, the 17th day of 6 October, 2015. The time is 8:32 a.m. We are 7 here at 425 North Andrews Avenue, Fort 8 Lauderdale, Florida, for the purpose of taking 9 the videotaped deposition of Paul G. Cassell . 10 The case is Bradley J. Edwards and Paul 11 G. Cassell versus Alan M. Dershowitz. 12 The court reporter is Terry Tomaselli , and 13 the videographer is Don Savoy, both from Esquire 14 Deposition Solutions. 15 Will counsel please announce their 16 appearances for the record. 17 MR. SCAROLA: Jack Scarola on behalf of the 18 Plaintiffs. 19 MR. SIMPSON: Richard Simpson of Wiley Rein 20 on behalf of the Defendant and Counterclaim 21 Plaintiff, Alan Dershowitz. With me is my 22 colleague, Nicole Richardson, and Thomas Scott of 23 Cole, Scott & Kissane, also for Mr. -- Professor 24 Dershowitz. 25 MR. SCAROLA: Before we begin the deposition, ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594394 157 1 we were informed for the first time yesterday 2 morning of the existence of a recording of a 3 telephone communication between Alan Dershowitz 4 and a woman identified only as Rebecca. 5 That information was conveyed to us 6 subsequent to Professor Dershowitz's sworn 7 testimony that no recording existed, but now that 8 we know that the recording existed and that it 9 was obviously made according to the 10 representations given to us, prior to the 11 completion of the responses to our earlier 12 discovery requests, I would like to know whether 13 it is the Defendant's position that it is 14 necessary for us to propound a new discovery 15 request to get information that clearly should 16 have been disclosed in response to the earlier 17 discovery request. 18 Is that the position that you're taking? 19 MR. SIMPSON: First, Mr. Scarola, I believe 20 you have mischaracterized Professor Dershowitz's 21 testimony. You didn't ask the question whether 22 he made a recording. Yesterday morning, he 23 provided that information in response to a 24 different question. 25 MR. SCAROLA: His exact testimony was: I ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594395 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 10 file a new request to produce? 11 MR. SIMPSON: As Mr. Scott indicated 12 yesterday, we will respond to you to the 13 discovery request. We will confer at a break and 14 respond to that question. I don't want to take 15 time on the record debating it. After Mr. Scott 16 and I have conferred at a break, we will respond 17 further to your question. 18 MR. SCAROLA: All right. So that the record 19 is clear, it is our position that the recording 20 itself, any evidence of any communication between 21 Mr. Dershowitz and Rebecca and/or Michael , any 22 notes with respect to any such communications, 23 text messages, e-mails, and an accurate privilege 24 log as to everything that is being withheld is 25 responsive to the earlier request to produce, and ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594396 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 10 sorry, I didn't announce my appearance for the 11 record. Sigrid McCawley from Boies, Schiller & 12 Flexner, and I have a standing objection that I'd 13 just like to repeat on the record. 14 MR. SCOTT: Feel better that you got that off 15 your chest? 16 MS. McCAWLEY: With respect to -- excuse me. 17 With respect to my client, 18 she is asserting her attorney/client privilege 19 with her attorneys and is not waiving it through 20 any testimony here today, and that I object to 21 any testimony elicited that would be used as a 22 subject of waiver for her attorney/client 23 privilege. 24 MR. SIMPSON: Would you reswear the witness, 25 please? ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594397 160 1 Thereupon, 2 PAUL G. CASSELL, 3 having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified 4 as follows: 5 THE WITNESS: I do. 6 CONTINUED DIRECT EXAMINATION 7 BY MR. SIMPSON: 8 Q. Good morning -- 9 A. Good morning. 10 Q. -- Mr. Cassell. 11 As of December 30th, 2014, had you ever met 12 with in person? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. And how many times had you met with her in 15 person? 16 A. Once. 17 Q. When was that? 18 A. Approximately May 2014. 19 Q. May of 2014? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. Who was present for that meeting? 22 A. I'm just pausing for a second because I 23 don't -- I think we're -- 24 Q. I -- I'm not -- 25 A. -- clearly not trying to get into ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594398 161 1 attorney/client communication. 2 Q. I'm not asking you for what was said at this 3 point. I'm just asking you who was present. I'm going 4 to ask you where it was, those kind of questions. 5 A. Sure. Yeah. The main person who was present 6 was Bradley J. Edwards, my Co-Plaintiff in this case. 7 Q. Okay. And obviously was 8 present? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. Anyone else present? 11 A. You know, there were -- this was at the 12 Farmer, Jaffee office here, and so persons who were 13 associated with the law firm were assisting, but those 14 were the main people. 15 Q. Okay. Do you remember any of those other 16 people associated with the law firm who were present? 17 A. Present for, you know, coming in and 18 assisting, I believe Brad's assistant, , was there, 19 and perhaps others at the firm, but it was -- it was 20 basically Brad and I. 21 Q. Was there anyone else who attended for the 22 entire meeting or a substantial portion of the meeting? 23 A. No. 24 Q. Okay. How long did the meeting last? 25 A. Approximately all day. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594399 162 1 Q. And when you say "all day," what time period 2 are you referring to? 3 A. 9:00 to 5:00. 4 Q. 9:00 to 5:00. Okay. And was that through 5 lunch; you just stayed through eight hours; is that -- 6 what's your recollection of that? 7 A. Yeah, I remember we were working very hard 8 on -- on it, so I think we had, if I recall correctly, 9 had lunch brought in and worked straight through that. 10 Q. Any other meetings in person with 11 before December 30th of 2014? 12 A. No. 13 Q. Any telephone calls with her that you -- you 14 had, obviously, before December 30th, 2014? 15 A. I believe there were a couple of -- of 16 telephone calls. 17 Q. And can you tell us when those were? 18 A. Let's see. Roughly September 2014. Give or 19 take a month. I mean, you know, sometime after May and 20 before December 30th. 21 Q. Okay. And were those telephone calls between 22 just you and or was anyone else on the 23 line? 24 A. No. It was just the two of -- just 25 and I. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594400 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. 9 Q. I'm going to ask you a question now, but 10 before you answer it, pause, because I believe you will 11 be instructed not to answer it -- 12 A. Okay. 13 Q. -- but want to -- I think -- we disagree on 14 the privilege -- 15 A. Sure. 16 Q. -- we believe it's been waived. 17 My question is: During the meeting, did you 18 discuss Professor Dershowitz? 19 MS. McCAWLEY: I'm going to object to any 20 discussion of what my client told you during any 21 situation where you were representing her as 22 an -- an attorney. 23 MR. SIMPSON: So -- and I think we had an 24 agreement yesterday, if you follow your own 25 counsel's instruction on not answering, are you ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594401 164 1 also going to follow Miss McCawley's instructions 2 on not answering on behalf of -- 3 MR. SCAROLA: Mr. Cassell will follow the 4 instructions of counsel. It is 5 not his privilege to waive, and he is ethically 6 obliged to respect the direction coming from 7 counsel. 8 MR. SIMPSON: Yes, I'm -- I'm simply, 9 Mr. Scarola, making my record that the witness 10 MR. SCAROLA: I understand that. 11 MR. SIMPSON: Right. We disagree. 12 MR. SCAROLA: I understand, but you can 13 assume the same way I have authorized you to 14 assume that Professor Cassell will follow my 15 instructions, Professor Cassell will also follow 16 all instructions concerning the assertion of 17 attorney/client privilege expressed on the record 18 by Miss McCawley on behalf of 19 MR. SIMPSON: All right. 20 BY MR. SIMPSON: 21 Q. So, Mr. Cassell, based on that, I will assume 22 that if I ask you what you recall the discussion being 23 at the meeting or at each of the phone calls, that 24 you're not going to answer those questions; is that 25 correct? ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594402 165 1 MS. McCAWLEY: Yes. 2 THE WITNESS: Yeah, obviously not. 3 BY MR. SIMPSON: 4 Q. Okay. 5 A. I mean, I have a duty to my client which I'm 6 going to respect. 7 Q. All right. So we'll -- we'll take that up 8 later with the judge. 9 As of December 30th, 2014, had you spoken 10 about this case with David Boies, and the question is 11 just: Had you spoken -- 12 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. 13 BY MR. SIMPSON: 14 Q. -- not what the discussion was. 15 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. It's the 16 common-interest privilege. 17 BY MR. SIMPSON: 18 Q. I'm only asking if there was a discussion, no 19 substance at all. Just, was there a discussion? 20 MS. McCAWLEY: I'm going to instruct you not 21 to answer that. 22 MR. SIMPSON: Okay. You're taking the 23 position that the fact of whether or not -- 24 MS. McCAWLEY: Yes, because you're also 25 trying to get into the timing of communications, ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594403 166 1 and all that goes into the advice that they were 2 giving her and surrounding that advice, so I 3 would object to that. 4 MR. SCAROLA: Could I have the question read 5 back? 6 (Thereupon, a portion of the record was read 7 by the reporter.) 8 MS. McCAWLEY: And I would like to clarify 9 what case as well that you're referring to. 10 MR. SIMPSON: All right. Let me ask the 11 question, and -- and I will note for the record 12 that yesterday, the witness testified that the 13 fact that Mr. Boies was representing 14 was significant to him. So it's sort of 15 being used as a sword and a shield here, but I 16 have only asked the question. I'll clarify. 17 MR. SCAROLA: We haven't used it any way yet. 18 MR. SIMPSON: Well , the -- the witness 19 volunteered. Shall I put it that way? And we 20 have a waiver. 21 BY MR. SIMPSON: 22 Q. But, in any event, my question is: Have you 23 spoken -- before December 30th of 2014, had you spoken 24 with David Boies about ' allegations 25 regarding Professor Dershowitz? ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594404 167 1 MR. SCAROLA: Without getting into the 2 substance of any such discussions, you can answer 3 that question. 4 THE WITNESS: My recollection is no. 5 MR. SCOTT: I think you're right on that one. 6 BY MR. SIMPSON: 7 Q. Okay. So the answer is, no, you had not 8 spoken with him? 9 A. My recollection -- 10 MR. SCAROLA: Judge Scott has issued a 11 ruling, so -- 12 MR. SCOTT: I wrote several opinions on that 13 actually. 14 MR. SCAROLA: -- we'll proceed. 15 THE WITNESS: Let me go back -- 16 MR. SCOTT: In the context of criminal 17 lawyers. 18 THE WITNESS: I'm trying to remember if I 19 wrote any opinions on that one when I was a 20 judge. My -- I don't recall , but -- I don't 21 recall . I -- my recollection is I had not 22 personally spoken to David Boies before December 23 30th, 2014. 24 BY MR. SIMPSON: 25 Q. Okay. Had you, before December 30th of 2014, ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594405 168 1 spoken with any other lawyers at Mr. Boies' firm? 2 A. My recollection is, no. 3 Q. And after December 30th of 2014, have you 4 spoken with Mr. Boies about 5 allegations against -- 6 MS. McCAWLEY: Again, I'm going to object. 7 BY MR. SIMPSON: 8 Q. -- Professor Dershowitz? 9 MS. McCAWLEY: Sorry. I will let you finish. 10 I'm objecting to this. I think it gets into 11 the substance of conversations under the 12 common-interest privilege, whether there was a 13 conversation, but you're getting into the 14 substance of what the conversation was about, and 15 I think that is a violation of her -- her 16 privilege. 17 MR. SCAROLA: And just so that I can clarify 18 our position on the record, I think that we can 19 identify the general subject matter in order to 20 support our position that it falls within the 21 common-interest privilege. So we are willing to 22 answer the question about the general subject 23 matter to support our assertion of 24 common-interest privilege, but not get into the 25 substance of the communications beyond that. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594406 169 1 MR. SIMPSON: And I believe it's the same 2 question that was answered a moment ago for a 3 different time period, and again, I'm not asking 4 for any substance. I'm just asking whether, 5 since December 30th, 2014, you have discussed the 6 allegations by against Professor 7 Dershowitz. 8 THE WITNESS: I would like to confer with my 9 counsel on that question. It gets into a 10 complicated legal issue that I'm not sure I 11 can -- 12 MR. SIMPSON: You want to confer on a 13 privilege issue; is that right? 14 THE WITNESS: I want to confer with my 15 counsel before answering that question anyway. 16 MR. SIMPSON: I just want to clarify -- 17 MR. SCAROLA: With respect to privilege. 18 MR. SIMPSON: All right. As long as it's 19 with respect to privilege, you're entitled to do 20 that. 21 THE WITNESS: Okay. 22 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are going off the video 23 record, 8:45 a.m. 24 (Thereupon, a recess was taken.) 25 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are back on the video ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594407 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 10 move to -- I'll reask the question. 11 THE WITNESS: Sure. That will be good. 12 BY MR. SIMPSON: 13 Q. My question is: I believed you had already 14 answered the question as to before December 30th, 2014, 15 you had discussed IIII ' allegations against 16 Professor Dershowitz, and you said, no; is that right? 17 MR. SCAROLA: David Boies. 18 MR. SIMPSON: David Boies. I'm sorry. 19 THE WITNESS: Before December 30th, no 20 discussions that I can recall with David Boies. 21 BY MR. SIMPSON: 22 Q. After December 30th, 2014, did you have any 23 discussions with David Boies about Professor Dershowitz? 24 A. Can I -- 25 MR. SCAROLA: You can answer yes or no. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594408 171 1 THE WITNESS: Yes. 2 BY MR. SIMPSON: 3 Q. You did. 4 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 9 and it's privilege to waive, and she's 10 not waiving it. 11 MR. SIMPSON: Okay. 12 MR. SCAROLA: We -- we assert the 13 common-interest privilege with regard to the 14 substance as well. 15 MR. SIMPSON: All right. And that -- that 16 will be -- that will be asserted as to all 17 questions about the substance of the discussions 18 with Mr. Boies; is that right? 19 MR. SCAROLA: I can't say that for sure. 20 MR. SIMPSON: All right. Let me ask my 21 question then. 22 MR. SCAROLA: And let -- maybe this -- maybe 23 this will help you and maybe it won't. But, 24 obviously, there have been some public statements 25 with regard to this general area. If the ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594409 172 1 communications were not considered to be 2 privileged at the time that they were made, we 3 can answer questions about that. If they were 4 considered to be privileged at the time they were 5 made, we can't answer questions. 6 So I can't tell you that there's a blanket 7 assertion. We need to hear the question. 8 THE WITNESS: I need the question back. 9 MR. SIMPSON: All right. 10 BY MR. SIMPSON: 11 Q. What did you discuss with Mr. Boies about the 12 allegations against Professor Dershowitz? 13 MR. SCAROLA: And that is common-interest 14 privilege information and we do assert a 15 privilege. 16 BY MR. SIMPSON: 17 Q. Did you discuss with Mr. Boies any 18 discussions he had had with Professor Dershowitz? 19 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. 20 MR. SCAROLA: Same objection. Same 21 instruction. 22 BY MR. SIMPSON: 23 Q. Did you discuss with Mr. Boies any documents 24 that Mr. Boies had reviewed? 25 MR. SCAROLA: Well, let me -- again, I don't ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594410 173 1 want to be asserting a privilege to questions as 2 to which the answer is no, so you can answer 3 generally as to whether the subject matter was 4 covered in any discussion that you had with 5 Mr. Boies. 6 THE WITNESS: Okay. 7 MR. SCAROLA: Okay. If the answer is no. If 8 the answer -- as I sink down in this chair, if 9 the answer may be yes, you can't respond. 10 MR. SIMPSON: I -- I -- that's a new version. 11 MS. McCAWLEY: I'm afraid -- yeah, I want 12 to -- I'm sorry. I want to confer on that 13 because I have an objection. 14 THE WITNESS: I have to say I want to confer, 15 I'm confused, too, so let's take a short break. 16 MR. SIMPSON: Again, you're conferring on the 17 privilege now, not the substance? 18 THE WITNESS: That's right. 19 MR. SCAROLA: Can we go off the record? 20 MR. SIMPSON: Yes. 21 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Going off the video 22 record, 8:48 a.m. 23 (Thereupon, a recess was taken.) 24 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are back on the video 25 record, 8:52 a.m. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594411 174 1 MR. SCAROLA: Because of concern about a 2 an inadvertent potential waiver of the 3 work-product privilege, while it is not our 4 intent to assert a privilege with regard to 5 nonexistent communications, any effort to 6 identify the subject matter of communications in 7 the questions that you asked will require that we 8 assert work-product privilege with regard to 9 those questions. 10 MR. SIMPSON: Okay. We disagree, obviously, 11 on that position. 12 MR. SCAROLA: We understand. 13 MR. SIMPSON: So I will ask some additional 14 questions and we will see if the witness answers 15 them. 16 MR. SCAROLA: If it begins: "Did you talk 17 about," the answer is going to be an assertion of 18 privilege. 19 MR. SIMPSON: Okay. 20 MR. SCAROLA: Okay? 21 MR. SIMPSON: I'll ask the questions. 22 BY MR. SIMPSON: 23 Q. Did you discuss with Mr. Boies any meetings 24 Mr. Boies had had with Professor Dershowitz? 25 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594412 175 1 MR. SCAROLA: Objection. Same instruction. 2 BY MR. SIMPSON: 3 Q. Did you discuss with Mr. Boies his views as 4 to the credibility of 5 MR. SCAROLA: Same objection. 6 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. 7 MR. SCAROLA: Same instruction. 8 BY MR. SIMPSON: 9 Q. Did you discuss with Mr. Boies any 10 allegations about sexual misconduct by Les Wexner? 11 MR. SCAROLA: Same objection. 12 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. 13 MR. SCAROLA: Same instruction. 14 MR. SIMPSON: That's the same question you 15 allowed to be answered. Did you -- let me ask it 16 a different way. 17 BY MR. SIMPSON: 18 Q. Did you discuss, in any way, Les Wexner with 19 Mr Boies? 20 MR. SCAROLA: Same objection. 21 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. 22 MR. SCAROLA: Same instruction. 23 MR. SIMPSON: He's instructed not to answer 24 whether that topic was discussed? 25 MR. SCAROLA: Yes. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594413 176 1 MS. McCAWLEY: Yes. 2 MR. SIMPSON: Okay. 3 BY MR. SIMPSON: 4 Q. Did you discuss former Prime Minister Barak 5 with Mr. Boies? 6 MR. SCAROLA: Same objection. 7 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. 8 MR. SCAROLA: Same instruction. 9 BY MR. SIMPSON: 10 Q. Yesterday, you mentioned that one of the 11 reasons that supported your conclusion that it -- you 12 had an adequate basis to allege in the joinder motion 13 that the allegations against Professor Dershowitz was 14 that Mr. Boies was representing -- yes, 15 ; do you recall that testimony? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. And you said that because of how highly 18 regarded Mr. Boies was, I think you mentioned the Bush 19 v. Gore case; is that right? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. I used to work for his opponent in Bush v. 22 Gore case. They are both very good. 23 A. I'm trying -- I was trying to remember. I'm 24 sorry to take time, but who was the other lawyer? 25 Q. Ted Olson. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594414 177 1 A. Ted, that's right. That's.. . 2 Q. But that's a side note. 3 My question is: Given your high regard for 4 Mr. Boies, would you -- would his views as to the 5 credibility of be something that would 6 be important to you in evaluating the case? 7 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. 8 MR. SIMPSON: Are you instructing him not to 9 answer? 10 MS. McCAWLEY: I mean, is it a hypothetical? 11 MR. SIMPSON: No. I'm just asking whether 12 his views -- those views -- I'm not asking what 13 the views are. I'm simply asking whether those 14 views would be important to him. 15 MR. SCAROLA: You may answer that question. 16 THE WITNESS: Yes. 17 BY MR. SIMPSON: 18 Q. And if I -- I may have asked this already, 19 but did you discuss with Mr. Boies his views as to the 20 credibility of 21 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. 22 MR. SCAROLA: Same objection Same 23 instruction. 24 BY MR. SIMPSON: 25 Q. Prior to December 30th of 2014, had you ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594415 178 1 discussed ' allegations of sexual 2 misconduct against Professor Dershowitz with Bob 3 Josefsberg? 4 A. Me personally? 5 Q. Yes, you personally. 6 A. No. 7 Q. After December 30th of 2014, had you -- did 8 you discuss with Mr. Josefsberg ' allegations 9 against Professor Dershowitz? 10 A. Not personally, no. 11 Q. You say not personally. Are you aware of 12 someone else who had those discussions of -- with Mr. -- 13 had any discussions on that topic with Mr. Josefsberg? 14 MR. SCAROLA: To the extent that that 15 question would call for any information that was 16 communicated to you in the context of the 17 common-interest privilege, you should not answer. 18 THE WITNESS: All right. I'm not going to... 19 MR. SCAROLA: So you -- you can answer it if 20 any such communication came to you outside the 21 context of the common-interest privilege, but you 22 may not include in your response any information 23 derived from the common-interest privilege. 24 BY MR. SIMPSON: 25 Q. And my question right now is not the ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594416 179 1 substance. We will get to that. But, to your 2 knowledge -- put -- let me rephrase that. 3 Did someone tell you that they had discussed 4 with Mr. Josefsbergs Josefsberg, the allegations made 5 by against Professor Dershowitz? 6 MR. SCAROLA: You may only answer that 7 question to the extent that you had any 8 communication regarding that subject matter with 9 someone outside the common-interest privilege, or 10 the attorney/client privilege for that matter. 11 BY MR. SIMPSON: 12 Q. I'm simply -- I'm not asking for substance, 13 just the name if you did. 14 MR. SCAROLA: Well , I understand that, but 15 following along the same lines as before, you are 16 asking us to identify the subject matter of a 17 communication that is privileged. We won't 18 answer questions regarding the subject matter of 19 privileged communications, but if 20 Professor Cassell had a conversation with Sam 21 Smith standing on the street corner about Bob 22 Josefsberg, he can answer that question. 23 BY MR. SIMPSON: 24 Q. Did you have a conversation with anyone -- 25 just narrow question: Did you have a conversation with ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594417 180 1 anyone who told you that they, that person, had 2 discussed the subject matter of 3 allegations against Professor Dershowitz with 4 Mr. Josefsberg? Just did you discuss it with anyone? 5 MR. SCAROLA: Same objection. Same 6 instruction. 7 MR. SIMPSON: Okay. 8 MR. SCAROLA: If you want to rephrase the 9 question to ask him whether he had such a 10 conversation with anyone outside the 11 attorney/client or work-product privilege, that's 12 a question that we are obliged to answer. 13 The question, as you phrased it, is a 14 question that we are precluded from answering. 15 MR. SIMPSON: That's a very strange notion of 16 privilege. 17 BY MR. SIMPSON: 18 Q. But let me ask it this way: Did you discuss 19 with anyone who is not an attorney -- let me rephrase it 20 a different way. 21 You testified yesterday about your 22 understanding of the scope of the alleged 23 common-interest privilege, correct? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. Putting aside the people within the scope of ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594418 181 1 that privilege -- 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. -- that you identified -- 4 A. Uh-huh. 5 Q. -- your definition of it -- 6 A. Right. That's right. 7 Q. -- did you discuss the topic did anyone 8 tell you they had discussed the topic of 9 allegations against Professor Dershowitz with 10 Mr. Josefsberg? 11 MR. SCAROLA: You may not answer that 12 question to the extent the question still 13 encompasses attorney/client privileged 14 communications. If you want to rephrase the 15 question to exclude both common-interest 16 privileged communications and attorney/client 17 privileged communications, that's a question we 18 are prepared to answer. 19 Otherwise, we are prohibited from answering 20 the question as phrased as a consequence of it 21 encompassing privileged communications. 22 MR. SIMPSON: As he defined the 23 common-interest privileged group, it included 24 attorney/client, but I think at this point the 25 explanations you're providing aren't really ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594419 182 1 helpful. So please just instruct him to answer 2 or not answer, and we will let the judge decide. 3 MR. SCAROLA: Well , the instruction -- I only 4 gave the explanation in the hope that it might 5 facilitate the examination and allow you to move 6 to areas where you can get substantive 7 information. 8 I apologize if you consider it a waste of 9 time. So I will simply instruct Professor 10 Cassell not to answer the question as phrased. 11 If you ever want an explanation as to the basis 12 of my instruction, I'm prepared to give that to 13 you 14 MR. SIMPSON: Thank you. That -- that's a 15 helpful way to proceed. 16 MR. SCAROLA: Okay. 17 BY MR. SIMPSON: 18 Q. Have you -- well, let's start this way: Have 19 you discussed with any of the attorneys within what you 20 described as the common-interest attorney/client group, 21 whether that person had discussed with Mr. Josefsberg 22 allegations against Professor 23 Dershowitz? 24 MR. SCAROLA: Same objection. Same 25 instruction. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594420 183 1 BY MR. SIMPSON: 2 Q. Have you discussed with anyone who is not an 3 attorney for IIII whether -- strike that. 4 Has anyone who is not an attorney for 5 told you that they had discussed with 6 Mr. Josefsberg the allegations against -- by 7 against Professor Dershowitz? 8 MR. SCAROLA: Same objection. Same 9 instruction. 10 BY MR. SIMPSON: 11 Q. Have you personally spoken with anyone else 12 at Mr. Josefsberg's firm, other than him, about 13 allegations against Professor Dershowitz? 14 A. Not to my knowledge. 15 MS. McCAWLEY: I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Can 16 you read that back? 17 MR. SCAROLA: Was a communication with anyone 18 else in Bob Josefsberg -- Bob Josefsberg's firm, 19 personal communication between Professor Cassell 20 and any firm member of Bob Josefsberg. 21 MS. McCAWLEY: Okay. 22 BY MR. SIMPSON: 23 Q. And the answer was, not that you recall? 24 A. Not to my knowledge. I don't know all the 25 members of his firm, but I certainly have no ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594421 184 1 recollection of talking to, you know, anyone who is -- 2 who was in his firm. 3 Q. Okay. 4 A. I -- I think the record should be clear, 5 I'm -- I'm an attorney and a law professor in Salt Lake 6 City, Utah, and my understanding, he's an attorney here 7 in Florida. So I don't ordinarily interact with -- 8 with, you know, attorneys in Florida, other than the 9 ones that I'm interacting with on -- on this case. 10 MR. SCAROLA: Which is now occurring on a 11 very regular basis. 12 BY MR. SIMPSON: 13 Q. Mr. Cassell -- 14 MR. SCOTT: No teaming, Mr. Scarola, please. 15 BY MR. SIMPSON: 16 Q. -- did -- didn't you testify yesterday that 17 the fact that Mr. Josefsberg's firm had filed a 18 complaint against IIII , who is also your client, 19 to be significant to your evaluation of the case? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. And if it -- if that was significant to 22 evaluation of the case, why are you telling us you don't 23 normally talk with attorneys in Florida? Doesn't he 24 represent -- at one point, represent the same client? 25 A. Right. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594422 185 1 Q. And so wouldn't it be natural for you to be 2 speaking with -- at least within the realm of something 3 one might expect for you to speak? 4 A. If I were a solo representative of 5 , that would be the case, but I think you're 6 obviously aware that I have co-counsel on this case, and 7 there are other attorneys who are also participating in 8 this matter. 9 So I think it would be obvious that if 10 there's a division of labor, it might not be along the 11 lines that you're suggesting. And I can't go any 12 further without going into work product and other issues 13 surrounding IIII ' representation. 14 Q. Has Mr. Boies ever told you that he believes 15 was mistaken in her accusations against 16 Professor Dershowitz? 17 MR. SCAROLA: Same objection. Same 18 instruction. 19 MS. McCAWLEY: Same instruction. 20 THE WITNESS: I'd like to confer with my 21 counsel on a attorney/client privilege issue in 22 connection with that question. 23 MS. McCAWLEY: Can I just write down the 24 question and -- 25 MR. SIMPSON: I'll -- I'll rephrase it. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594423 186 1 BY MR. SIMPSON: 2 Q. Have you ever -- I'll rephrase the question. 3 Have you ever discussed with Mr. Boies his 4 views as to whether or not IIII is mistaken in 5 her allegations against Professor Dershowitz? 6 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. 7 MR. SCAROLA: Same objection. Same 8 instruction. 9 BY MR. SIMPSON: 10 Q. Prior to December 30th of 2014, had you 11 personally reviewed any of the flight logs that had been 12 referred to in the testimony in this case? 13 A. All right? 14 Q. My only question is whether you personally 15 reviewed them. 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. What flight logs have you reviewed; how would 18 you describe them? 19 A. Both Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 2 that were shown 20 to Mr. Dershowitz yesterday. 21 Q. If -- I believe those were Exhibits 6 and 22 7-- 23 A. Okay. 24 Q. -- but can we agree that flight logs were 25 marked as exhibits? ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594424 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 10 in May -- approximately May 2014. 11 Q. Would -- do you -- isn't it true that those 12 flight logs support Professor Dershowitz's testimony 13 that he was never on a plane with IIIIIII? 14 A. No. 15 Q. How do they not? What is -- what is the 16 explanation for your conclusion in that regard? 17 A. Right. We talked about this yesterday, so 18 I'll incorporate to speed things up some of the 19 testimony that I gave yesterday. 20 What the flight logs showed was, to my mind, 21 evidence of potential doctoring, evidence of -- of 22 selective presentation of evidence. Mr. Dershowitz had 23 presented to a law enforcement agency, at their request, 24 apparently what I understood to be the -- the -- I 25 understood that he had been requested by a law ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594425 188 1 enforcement agency to provide flight logs relevant to 2 this investigation. 3 And rather than providing all the flight logs 4 that were available at that time, he appears to have 5 provided flight logs that went from January 2005 through 6 September 2005, knowing that he appeared on an 7 October -- I may be off by one month here -- but on an 8 October 2005 flight log. 9 So that, to my mind, had indicated that 10 Professor Dershowitz was providing selective information 11 to law enforcement. Those concerns -- this is, you 12 know, there's -- there's more to it. 13 The other problem was that the flight logs 14 that Mr. Dershowitz had produced were inconsistent with 15 the flight logs that Dave Rogers, one of Mr. Epstein's 16 pilots had, so there were now inconsistencies on these 17 flight logs. And it seemed to be -- it seemed to me to 18 be surprising that during the period of time where 19 was involved, Mr. Dershowitz was not 20 appearing on those flight logs. 21 Now, it is possible, I suppose, and that 22 seems to be Mr. Dershowitz's position, that the reason 23 he's not on those flight logs is that he was not on 24 those flights. But given all of the information -- and 25 I won't take your time this morning to go through -- all ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594426 189 1 the information I had about this international sex 2 trafficking organization, it seemed to me that it was 3 also possible that the sex trafficking organization, 4 which was represented by, you know, vast resources and 5 the ability to produce witnesses and documents and other 6 information that would -- would cover up the existence 7 of this organization, had gone through the flight logs 8 and had made necessary alterations to -- to conceal the 9 scope of -- of the -- of the operation. 10 In addition to that, when I started to 11 compare the Dave Rogers' flight logs with the David 12 excuse me. I am going to get a drink. 13 When I started to compare the -- oh, I'm 14 sorry. I should be looking at the camera. 15 When I started -- when I started to compare 16 the Dave Rogers' flight logs with the Dershowitz -- 17 which we call them the Dershowitz flight logs, which 18 were the logs that he had produced, there were 19 inconsistencies, and so it struck me as odd that there 20 were these inconsistent flight logs. 21 The other thing that I noticed is, I don't 22 believe that Dave Rogers was the exclusive pilot for 23 Mr. Epstein. And so I had a concern -- excuse me. I'm 24 sorry. 25 I had a concern that the flight logs that -- ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594427 190 1 that covered the jet were not just the David Rogers' 2 flight logs, but there should be flight logs for other 3 pilots which were not apparently being produced. 4 And so, in light of all that, what I was 5 seeing was a -- a production of flight logs that was 6 incomplete. And then I started to hear from 7 Mr. Dershowitz that, well , these records prove 8 conclusively I couldn't have done that. And I knew to 9 an absolute certainty, that the records were 10 inconsistent and inaccurate; and for somebody who had 11 apparently carefully produced these records, to 12 represent that these conclusively prove that he wasn't 13 on the flights, seemed to me to be inaccurate 14 information. 15 So that was -- those were the kinds of things 16 I was thinking about. 17 Q. Mr. Cassell , is it your testimony -- 18 MR. SIMPSON: Well , first of all, I move to 19 strike the nonresponsive portion of the answer. 20 BY MR. SIMPSON: 21 Q. Mr. Cassell , is it your testimony that you 22 have sufficient information to conclude and allege that 23 Professor Dershowitz falsified documents and gave 24 falsified documents to a prosecuting authority? 25 A. It is my belief that Professor Dershowitz ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594428 191 1 provided incomplete production to law enforcement 2 agencies. 3 Q. Is it your testimony under oath that you have 4 sufficient information to allege that Professor 5 Dershowitz intentionally provided false information to a 6 prosecuting authority? 7 A. It is my position that he provided incomplete 8 information to a prosecuting authority and inaccurate 9 information to a prosecuting authority. 10 Now, as to precisely what his state of mind 11 was when he was producing the incomplete and inaccurate 12 information, that remains to be this -- you know, that 13 was one of the topics that I was hoping could have been 14 covered in -- in the depositions here in the last two 15 days, but unfortunately, there wasn't sufficient time. 16 Q. Let me ask it a different way. You -- you 17 gave a long answer in which you described reasons you 18 apparently believe that these flight logs were not 19 merely incomplete, but that someone had false -- 20 falsified them. And did I understand you correctly? 21 MR. SCAROLA: Excuse me. The question that 22 was asked was limited to the time period prior to 23 December 30th. The answer that was given was 24 limited to the time period prior to December 25 30th. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594429 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.) 9 MR. SCAROLA: And I object. The question is 10 vague and ambiguous because it fails to identify 11 the time period about which you are inquiring. 12 BY MR. SIMPSON: 13 Q. Mr. Cassell , as you sit here today, are you 14 prepared, based on the information you have available to 15 you, to assert that Professor Dershowitz intentionally 16 provided misleading or doctored documents to a 17 prosecuting authority? 18 A. So based on all the information I have today? 19 Q. Yes. 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. What do you base -- what is the basis for 22 that conclusion, and include information up until today? 23 A. All right. So, obviously, that's an 24 open-ended question. 25 Q. I -- just answer the question, please, as ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594430 193 1 best you can. 2 A. Sure. All right. Well , let me just -- 3 that's a lot -- there's a lot of things to get into on 4 that. 5 Let's start with the events of the last two 6 days, the deposition of Mr. Dershowitz, which in my mind 7 demonstrates repeated false statements that were made by 8 Mr. Dershowitz. 9 Let's begin with the overarching point about 10 the deposition of the last two days. I've been 11 practicing law -- law since about 1986. And in my 12 experience, I have never seen a more evasive effort to 13 avoid answering questions, and to essentially run out 14 the clock so that detailed questions could not be asked 15 by my attorney. And I witnessed over the last two days, 16 Mr. Dershowitz was asked a series of very simple 17 questions; where were you on this day; or what's the 18 name; or what time, things like that, and instead of, 19 you know, giving an -- an immediate answer, he ended up 20 giving a very extended answer commonly punctuated with 21 disparaging remarks that seemed to have nothing to do 22 with answering the question. 23 So I drew the inference from that that 24 Mr. Dershowitz did not want to answer questions over the 25 last two days. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594431 194 1 Another thing that happened during the 2 deposition, and I will not repeat what was said in the 3 deposition, because there was immediately an objection 4 from Ms. McCawley, but there were two points in the 5 deposition where Mr. Dershowitz made representations 6 about what a New York Attorney David Boies would say, 7 and I'm not going into any -- 8 Q. I -- I just want to say if he starts talking 9 about it -- 10 MS. McCAWLEY: No, I -- I object to any 11 reference -- 12 MR. SIMPSON: -- then I get to ask all the 13 questions if he should say anything. 14 MS. McCAWLEY: I think he's just 15 acknowledging that -- I'm sorry. I think he's 16 acknowledging that that occurred. I object to 17 any -- any discussion of any settlement 18 communications in the context of that privilege. 19 MR. SCAROLA: I don't intend to get into any 20 settlement discussions. We are not going to 21 repeat the substance of the objected-to 22 testimony. 23 MR. SIMPSON: My point, I just want it to be 24 on notice -- 25 MS. McCAWLEY: Yes. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594432 195 1 MR. SIMPSON: -- is if this witness starts 2 saying anything about his communications or why 3 he -- he's coming to a conclusion, he's putting 4 that forth as a basis, he has opened the door. 5 You can't put it forth and park and not let 6 me ask for all the discussions. 7 MR. SCAROLA: You can -- you can proceed and 8 you know not to include privileged -- 9 THE WITNESS: Yes. 10 MR. SCAROLA: -- communications. 11 THE WITNESS: There was a newspaper that 12 reported -- a Florida business newspaper that 13 promptly after Mr. Dershowitz said that Mr. Boies 14 had made certain representations, a Florida -- 15 respected Florida business newspaper immediately 16 reported that David Boies had said, that was a 17 false statement. 18 And in light of that, I now had David Boies 19 saying that Mr. Dershowitz was making false 20 statements under oath during the -- the 21 deposition that occurred over the last two days. 22 In addition to that, I had -- again, during 23 the deposition, I heard Mr. Dershowitz say that 24 Attorney Bob Josefsberg had said that -- words to 25 the effect that he, Josefsberg, did not believe ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594433 196 1 2 I knew Josefsberg was an attorney who had 3 represented IIII 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 himself from the 10 sex trafficking that he had been involved with. 11 In addition to that, I learned during the 12 deposition on Thursday that it had, quote, not 13 crossed my mind, close quote -- I believe that's 14 a direct quote from Mr. Dershowitz -- to record a 15 conversation with a woman allegedly named Rebecca 16 who had allegedly made certain statements. That 17 was on Thursday. 18 And then yesterday, Friday, I learned that 19 Mr. Dershowitz, not only had it crossed his mind 20 to make a recording, he had, in fact, made such a 21 recording; and in fact, had it transcribed; and 22 in fact, turned it over to his attorneys. So, 23 once again, I had what appeared to be a false 24 statement under oath by Mr. Dershowitz in an 25 attempt to exculpate himself from the -- the sex ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594434 197 1 trafficking that we -- we have evidence he has 2 been involved with. 3 The false statements or certainly misleading 4 statements continue. I suppose, some of these 5 could be a matter of judgment. The -- they raise 6 grave concern to me. 7 One of them was that we had propounded an 8 interrogatory requesting the basis for 9 Mr. Dershowitz's statements that 10 had a criminal record. And he said that, well , 11 she's admitted that she had sex with various 12 people, so that renders her a criminal , and 13 something along those lines, which I didn't think 14 was very accurate. 15 But in any event, that was the answer he 16 gave. And then I learned during the deposition 17 in the last two days, that Mr. Dershowitz had 18 received information that he says shows that 19 had stolen money from a 20 restaurant and had been criminally charged with 21 that. 22 That was not produced to us during discovery, 23 even though it would have been obviously 24 relevant, and it was directly called for in the 25 discovery that we were provided with. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594435 198 1 You know, I also have -- I would like to 2 refresh my recollection and if -- if counsel -- 3 that's -- 4 MR. SCAROLA: You can refresh your 5 recollection on anything you need to. 6 THE WITNESS: All right. I'd like to refresh 7 my recollection by looking at -- 8 MR. SIMPSON: Actually, I -- I object to this 9 answer as nonresponsive. I haven't heard 10 anything about flight logs once. 11 MR. SCAROLA: You can continue. 12 THE WITNESS: These -- you know, these all go 13 to the statements. 14 BY MR. SIMPSON: 15 Q. You're looking at a document? 16 A. Yeah. Let's mark it as an exhibit if you'd 17 like. This is a memory aid to me. 18 Q. Did you prepare it? 19 A. Yes, I did. All right. Let's see. At page 20 114 of a rough transcript that I saw prepared of 21 Thursday's testimony, Mr. Dershowitz was asked. Quote: 22 You know that is not the only person 23 who has sworn under oath that you were present at 24 Jeffrey Epstein's Palm Beach home with young girls, 25 right? Answer: No. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594436 199 1 That seemed to me to be false or at the very 2 least misleading testimony given that Mr. Dershowitz 3 knew that Juan Alessi, among potentially other people, 4 had identified him as having been in the presence of 5 Jeffrey Epstein and young girls at the Florida mansion 6 and, indeed, had identified a photograph of 7 8 At page 164 of the transcript, Mr. Dershowitz 9 was asked, quote: All of the manifests that have been 10 produced in this litigation, the ones that you say 11 corroborate your testimony and exonerate you, 12 demonstrate that you never flew on Jeffrey Epstein's 13 plane in the company of your wife, correct? Answer: 14 No, that's not true. I don't know that. 15 And, again, in the context of this litigation 16 where the flight logs have been, as this question that 17 I'm answering tends to show, are so central for 18 Mr. Dershowitz to testify under oath that he didn't know 19 whether his wife was depicted on the flight log, struck 20 me as, at the very least, misleading information, but I 21 concluded in my opinion was actually deliberately false 22 information, particularly, given this litigation where 23 he has produced, not only his own personal travel 24 record, but all of his wife's travel records for the 25 relevant period of time. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594437 200 1 So I thought that was, again, a deliberate 2 false statement under oath designed to exculpate him 3 from his criminal involvement in this international sex 4 trafficking ring. 5 At another point in the transcript, he was 6 asked, quote, -- no, I'm sorry. He stated, quote: I 7 challenge you to find any statement where I said I have 8 never traveled outside the presence of my wife, close 9 quote, representing that there would be no such 10 statement there, when, in fact, I'm aware of an American 11 Lawyer quotation attributed to him from January 15th, 12 2015, quote: I've been married to the same woman for 28 13 years. She goes with me everywhere, close quote. And, 14 again, you know, this -- I understand sometimes people 15 may go away from their wife, but the American Lawyer 16 was, obviously, on January 15th, 2015, asking about: 17 Well, have you been outside the presence of your wife in 18 situations where you might have interacted with 19 And that was the answer that he gave to the 20 American Lawyer. 21 And based on -- on my review of the flight 22 logs, I thought that was, again, a deliberate effort to 23 obscure and try to exculpate himself from his 24 involvement in this international sex trafficking ring. 25 The -- he also said yesterday: Nobody knows ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594438 201 1 about Prince Andrew and , except for the two of 2 them. And, again, I thought that was at a minimum, 3 deliberately mis -- misleading information and more 4 likely deliberately false information, because 5 Mr. Dershowitz was aware of the photograph and had long 6 been aware of the photograph that shows Prince Andrew 7 with his arm around , standing next to a 8 beaming Glenn Maxwell who has been involved in this 9 international sex trafficking organization. 10 And in the circumstances of that photograph, 11 it seems quite likely that the photographer who took 12 that picture was the head of the international sex 13 trafficking ring, Jeffrey Epstein. And so for him to 14 say that only two people knew what went on was, again, 15 deliberately false information, because I know he is the 16 attorney for Jeffrey Epstein, and he could have asserted 17 attorney/client privilege over that, said, I can't get 18 into my communications with my client about what he was 19 doing with Prince Andrew. 20 But instead he said, no one knows what 21 happened, other than those two people in circumstances 22 where it was quite clear that there would have been 23 others who would have been aware of that. 24 Now, the question is: Why do I think the -- 25 the -- you know, there are inaccuracies in the flight ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594439 202 1 logs. And I could refresh my recollection here by 2 looking at, I think it's docket entry 291 of our 3 pleading that we presented on January 21st to 4 Judge Marra where we provided specific itemized examples 5 of inconsistencies between the Dave Rogers' flight log 6 and the -- again, I'll call it, the Alan Dershowitz 7 flight log, which was a selected presentation of flight 8 log information. 9 And when you see those inconsistencies, it 10 becomes very hard to believe that all of the information 11 that was provided in those flight logs was accurate. So 12 when I take all of that information, put it together, I 13 believe that there's sufficient -- I have a sufficient 14 basis for believing at this point in time, that 15 Mr. Dershowitz has, indeed, provided inaccurate 16 information to -- to law enforcement agencies, or at a 17 minimum has provided -- has produced inaccurate 18 information through circumstances beyond his control. 19 But when he continually represents that the 20 information is accurate and exonerates him, I believe 21 that that is a deliberately false statement. 22 MR. SIMPSON: Move to strike the answer 23 the nonresponsive portion of the answer. 24 MR. SCAROLA: Which portion is that? 25 MR. SIMPSON: 99 percent of it. I think at ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594440 203 1 the end, we got to the flight logs. 2 I move to strike the nonresponsive portion. 3 BY MR. SIMPSON: 4 Q. Mr. Cassell , you came here today looking for 5 an opportunity to give that statement; did you not? 6 A. If it was relevant to an answer I was giving, 7 yes. 8 Q. The answer to my question is, yes, you came 9 here today looking for a question to which you could 10 respond with that prepared statement? 11 A. I was prepared to give that -- I anticipated 12 that a very good attorney for Mr. Dershowitz might ask a 13 question where that would be relevant. And if that 14 question were asked and I was given the opportunity to 15 make that statement, I wanted to be prepared to give it 16 in the most accurate way that I could. 17 MR. SIMPSON: I would like the reporter to 18 mark as Exhibit -- are we up to 4 -- Exhibit 4, 19 the document that Mr. Cassell was referring to. 20 I'll let the reporter do that. 21 THE WITNESS: Okay. 22 (Cassell's I.D. Exhibit No. 4 - document 23 produced by the witness was marked for identification.) 24 MR. SIMPSON: I just want to make that part 25 of the record. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594441 204 1 BY MR. SIMPSON: 2 Q. Before Wednesday of this week, you had none 3 of the information that you just described about 4 Professor Dershowitz's testimony, correct? 5 A. Correct. 6 Q. I'm trying to look at my notes here of your 7 long answer, but one thing you indicated that -- was the 8 fact that Professor Dershowitz gave long answers is 9 somehow indicative of false answers or perjury 10 MR. SCAROLA: That is 11 BY MR. SIMPSON: 12 Q. -- is that right? 13 MR. SCAROLA: That is an absolute 14 mischaracterization of the statement that 15 Professor Cassell made. He did not refer to the 16 length of the answers, but rather their 17 nonresponsiveness. 18 BY MR. SIMPSON: 19 Q. Let me -- let me ask a different question. 20 Go back to the flight logs themselves. 21 A. Okay. 22 Q. My initial question that got us going down 23 this line was: Isn't it true that the flight logs 24 themselves support Professor Dershowitz's testimony that 25 he was never on a plane with , the face ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594442 205 1 of the flight logs support that proposition? 2 A. The face of the flight logs for the relevant 3 period of time, we can call it the hot period of time or 4 whatever you want, did not reveal the presence of 5 Mr. Dershowitz on those flights, yes. 6 Q. Okay. So during the period -- well, 7 actually, there's no flight log that shows 8 and Professor Dershowitz on the same airplane, 9 correct? 10 A. That's my understanding, yes. 11 Q. And -- 12 MR. SCAROLA: By name. You're -- you're -- 13 MS. McCAWLEY: And it -- 14 MR. SCAROLA: -- asking whether she was there 15 identified by name? 16 BY MR. SIMPSON: 17 Q. To your knowledge, isn't it correct that 18 there is no flight log that's been produced in this case 19 by any party that reflects Professor Dershowitz and 20 on the same plane, as you read the 21 flight log? 22 MR. SCAROLA: I'm sorry. Are you asking 23 whether those same names appear on the flight log 24 together? 25 MR. SIMPSON: My question, I think, is ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594443 206 1 perfectly clear. 2 BY MR. SIMPSON: 3 Q. My question, Mr. Cassell, is: You reviewed 4 the flight logs, correct? 5 A. Correct. 6 Q. You reviewed them in some detail, correct? 7 A. Correct. 8 Q. Is there any entry on those flight lines -- 9 logs that you read as putting Professor Dershowitz and 10 on the same plane? 11 A. No. 12 Q. And so your testimony about questions about 13 the completeness and accuracy of those flight logs goes 14 to whether the logs are -- let me rephrase that. 15 The answer that you gave about your question 16 as -- your views as to the completeness of the flight 17 logs and whether they may have been changed in some 18 ways, goes to whether those logs are conclusive, not 19 whether they, in fact, support Professor Dershowitz's 20 testimony that he was not on a plane with 21 22 MR. SCAROLA: I'm going to object to the form 23 of the question as vague and ambiguous. I don't 24 understand it. 25 THE WITNESS: And I won't give a long answer, ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594444 207 1 but I -- I think, as I previously indicated, you 2 can't just look at the face of these documents 3 without -- with -- you know, against the context 4 of an international sex trafficking ring that's 5 trying to cover up what it's doing. You can't 6 just look and documents and assume that they are 7 100 percent accurate without that -- having that 8 context in mind. 9 BY MR. SIMPSON: 10 Q. And so am I right, that on the face of the 11 flight logs, there's nothing showing 12 and Professor Dershowitz on the same plane? 13 A. That's correct. 14 Q. And -- go on. 15 And so do I understand correctly that your 16 position is that the flight logs may not be complete or 17 may have been changed, but you do not dispute, that on 18 their face, they support Professor Dershowitz's 19 testimony? 20 MR. SCAROLA: Objection. 21 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. 22 MR. SCAROLA: Compound. 23 THE WITNESS: Could you just aggregate that? 24 BY MR. SIMPSON: 25 Q. You follow the objections very well. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594445 208 1 A. I was thinking of that as well. 2 BY MR. SIMPSON: 3 Q. Let me -- 4 A. I wasn't -- 5 Q. Let me -- 6 A. -- following their answer. 7 Q. Let me -- let me just ask a different 8 question. 9 A. Sure. Thanks. 10 Q. You testified that you have -- at some 11 length, about why you question the accuracy of the 12 flight logs, correct? 13 A. Correct. 14 Q. But I may be redundant, but you don't 15 question that what they show on their face supports 16 Professor Dershowitz's testimony -- 17 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. 18 BY MR. SIMPSON: 19 Q. -- that he was not on a plane with 20 21 A. The -- you know, the -- the sex trafficking 22 ring run by Jeffrey Epstein has produced Epstein flight 23 logs that appear to show that -- that Dershowitz and 24 are not on the plane, so... 25 Q. So the answer to my question is, yes? ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594446 209 1 MR. SCAROLA: I'm sorry. 2 THE WITNESS: Which question now? 3 MR. SIMPSON: The question you just -- could 4 you read back my -- my question and the answer? 5 BY MR. SIMPSON: 6 Q. Let me ask it again. 7 A. Okay. 8 Q. That's fine. 9 A. I mean, I thought I was 10 MR. SCAROLA: There's no question pending. 11 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry 12 BY MR. SIMPSON: 13 Q. What were you about to say? 14 A. I was about to say that the records that they 15 produced -- I'm -- I'm sorry... 16 Q. The records -- the records that were 17 produced -- 18 A. On -- on their face, I cannot give you a 19 flight log that has and Alan Dershowitz 20 sitting next to each other, yes. 21 Q. And you also -- you also testified a moment 22 ago that Professor Dershowitz in his testimony in the 23 last couple of days, had testified that 24 had been arrested for stealing cash; do you refer -- do 25 you recall that? ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594447 210 1 A. I recall his testimony to that effect, yes. 2 Q. And you testified that no support for that 3 had been produced in discovery; is that correct? 4 A. That's my understanding, yes. 5 Q. Isn't it true that in Mr. Alessi's 6 deposition, he describes that under oath and says that 7 it happened? 8 A. I don't have a recollection of criminal 9 charges having been discussed in the Alessi deposition. 10 Q. Is it -- well , let me -- let me ask you: Is 11 it your testimony that you understood that, in fact, 12 had been accused of stealing money from her 13 employer? 14 MS. McCAWLEY: I'm going to object to the 15 extent it gets into any conversations that you 16 had with on any of these issues. 17 THE WITNESS: Yeah, I'm trying to -- if your 18 question is about the Alessi depo, I don't -- 19 don't immediately recall him discussing -- 20 discussing them. 21 BY MR. SIMPSON: 22 Q. If I represent to you that Mr. Alessi, in his 23 deposition, referred to a police report and an arrest of 24 , do you have any reason to question that? 25 MR. SCAROLA: Could we -- could we pull out ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594448 211 1 the deposition? And if you have got a reference 2 in the deposition, let's take a look at it. 3 MR. SIMPSON: I'm just asking for his 4 recollection right now. The document will speak 5 for itself. But I want to -- 6 MR. SCAROLA: Yes, it will . 7 MR. SIMPSON: He -- he made a very serious 8 accusation. I would like to get an answer to my 9 question. Does he recall whether, in that 10 deposition that all the parties in this case 11 have, Mr. Alessi said under oath, that she had 12 been arrested and charged with stealing from her 13 employer. 14 THE WITNESS: When you -- the question built 15 in a serious accusation, the -- the -- the -- the 16 statement I was making is that we had propounded 17 an interrogatory to Mr. Dershowitz saying: 18 What's the basis for your assertion that 19 had a criminal record? And that 20 answer didn't refer to an Alessi depo. If it 21 this is one of the problems that I'm having. 22 When -- when -- you know, when you come into 23 a deposition, both sides are supposed to turn 24 everything over. And then if I get a question 25 about, well , what if -- you know, we're relying ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594449 212 1 on this piece of the Alessi depo and it's not in 2 the answers to interrogatories, it's hard for me 3 to -- to give an answer to that. So -- so that's 4 the -- that's the concern I have. 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 -- 10 MR. SCAROLA: The question was: Did he 11 recall the contents -- 12 MR. SIMPSON: I'm asking the question. 13 MR. SCAROLA: -- of the Alessi deposition. 14 MR. SIMPSON: I'm withdrawing it. I will ask 15 a new question. 16 MR. SCAROLA: Okay. Thank you. 17 BY MR. SIMPSON: 18 Q. I understood you in your -- the long answer 19 that you gave a while ago to suggest that Professor 20 Dershowitz had either testified falsely or failed to 21 provide relevant information on which he was basing his 22 testimony about IIII arrest; is that right? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. And that assertion would be incorrect if 25 there's a deposition in this case that all the parties ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594450 213 1 have that include that information? 2 MR. SCAROLA: Mr. Simpson, there was an 3 express reference to an answer to interrogatory, 4 and the absence of any reference to an arrest for 5 theft in your client's sworn answer to 6 interrogatory. That's -- 7 MR. SIMPSON: We -- we -- 8 MR. SCAROLA: -- exactly what the testimony 9 was. 10 MR. SIMPSON: If you object to the form, 11 please just object to the form. I think it's a 12 proper question -- 13 MR. SCAROLA: I -- I object -- 14 MR. SIMPSON: -- in our discovery response. 15 MR. SCAROLA: -- I object to your 16 misrepresentation of the earlier testimony. I'm 17 sure it was not intentional, and that's why I'm 18 calling it to your attention so that we don't go 19 down a rabbit trail. 20 MR. SIMPSON: I'm not going down any rabbit 21 trail. I'm really -- objection to the form will 22 preserve it. 23 BY MR. SIMPSON: 24 Q. My question is whether you were aware at the 25 time that Professor Dershowitz testified that, in fact, ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594451 214 1 Mr. Alessi had also testified previously about the 2 arrest of IIII 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 10 hour. Is it time to take a break? Is that 11 convenient for you? 12 MR. SIMPSON: We can take a break now. 13 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are going off the video 14 record, 9:35 a.m. 15 (Thereupon, a recess was taken.) 16 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are back on the video 17 record, 9:47 a.m. 18 THE WITNESS: I need to take two minutes, if 19 I may, and just supplement the long answer that I 20 gave about the series of things. 21 By looking over my checklist, I noticed that 22 item 5 of the 12 items was not given during my 23 testimony. I'm -- 24 BY MR. SIMPSON: 25 Q. I don't -- I'm not going to ask about item 5. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594452 215 1 It's in the record as part of your -- your -- your -- 2 A. I would like to just supplement -- 3 MR. SCAROLA: That's fine. That's fine. If 4 you don't want to hear it, that's okay. 5 THE WITNESS: I'd like -- 6 MR. SCAROLA: Just as long as it's noted that 7 there was an inadvertent omission. 8 THE WITNESS: Yeah. 9 BY MR. SIMPSON: 10 Q. As part of -- I'm going to go back actually 11 to -- 12 A. Sure. 13 Q. -- the questions I was asking. One question 14 about the -- the flight logs again. 15 A. Okay. 16 Q. It's true, is it not, that you have no 17 personal knowledge as to whether Professor Dershowitz or 18 some other member of Jeffrey Epstein's defense team 19 prepared those logs for production to the government? 20 A. I don't have personal knowledge of -- of 21 that, that's right. 22 Q. And you would agree, would you not, that it's 23 the duty of a defense counsel to represent a client 24 zealously within the bounds of the law, correct? 25 A. Correct. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594453 216 1 Q. In fact, I think you testified yesterday 2 about your duty with respect to IIII along those 3 lines, correct? 4 A. That's right. 5 Q. And so with respect to Professor Dershowitz's 6 representation of Jeffrey Epstein, he would have been 7 acting unethically if he didn't attempt to negotiate the 8 best resolution for his client that he could, consistent 9 with the law; is that correct? 10 A. Right. Consistent with the law, yes. 11 Q. And so you wouldn't -- 12 A. I'm sorry. Let me just -- consistent with 13 the law and with the ethical obligations of attorneys. 14 Attorneys cannot make, for example, false 15 representations when they are negotiating those kinds of 16 things. 17 Q. Right. The duty as a defense counsel, 18 Professor Dershowitz's duty was to attempt to obtain the 19 best resolution he could for Jeffrey Epstein consistent 20 with the law and legal ethics, correct? 21 A. That's correct. 22 Q. And, in fact, if he had not done that, he 23 would have been acting unethically, correct? 24 A. That's correct. 25 Q. And would you agree that it would be ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594454 217 1 inappropriate, totally inappropriate, to infer anything 2 negative about an attorney because the attorney 3 represented someone accused of heinous crimes? 4 A. Just the fact of representation alone? 5 Q. Yes. 6 A. Yeah, that's right. Sure, of course, 7 everyone is entitled to a defense. 8 Q. As -- before December 30th of 2014, had you 9 reviewed the Palm Beach Police report? 10 A. Portions of it, yes. 11 Q. Had you reviewed the entire report? 12 A. I think I reviewed most of it, but I don't 13 think I've gone through it page by page. 14 Q. When did you do that? 15 A. Well, let's see. Before December 30th, 2014, 16 Brad and I filed the case in about July 2008, so it was 17 about a six-year period of time, and I remember I'd been 18 to Florida a couple of times on this case, once in 2010 19 and I think another a year or two later. And I 20 remember, at least on one of those times, reviewing the 21 report here with -- I don't know if I can... 22 MS. McCAWLEY: Yeah. I wouldn't go into 23 anything. 24 THE WITNESS: To the -- right So we just -- 25 we just want to know -- ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594455 218 1 MS. McCAWLEY: The location is fine. 2 THE WITNESS: The location, once 3 personally -- once here in Florida, and then in 4 my office in -- while in Salt Lake City. 5 BY MR. SIMPSON: 6 Q. And are you able to place in time when you 7 reviewed these portions of the police report, other than 8 before December 30th of 2014? 9 A. Not precisely, no. 10 Q. And do I understand correctly from your 11 testimony yesterday that that police report is one of 12 the things you relied on to support making the 13 allegations against Professor Dershowitz that are 14 included in the joinder motion? 15 A. That's right. 16 Q. It's also true, is it not, that that police 17 report includes an interview with an adult woman who was 18 retained to provide massages at Jeffrey Epstein's 19 residence for guests, among others; isn't that correct? 20 A. I believe that's correct. 21 Q. And based on that, is it your testimony that 22 it's fair to presume that a reference that a guest got a 23 massage is a code word for abusing a minor sexually? 24 MR. SCAROLA: I'm sorry. Are you -- are you 25 isolating -- ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594456 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 only that 7 piece -- 8 MR. SIMPSON: I -- the question -- 9 MR. SCAROLA: -- of information? 10 MR. SIMPSON: I'm -- I am asking a question 11 that's perfectly clear. If you think it's 12 objectionable, it won't -- it will stand. 13 MR. SCAROLA: I'm going to object on the 14 basis that it is vague and ambiguous. It is 15 unclear whether you're asking for him -- 16 MR. SIMPSON: Please don't coach the witness. 17 MR. SCAROLA: -- to isolate -- to isolate his 18 focus to that single piece of evidence. 19 MR. SIMPSON: I object on the coaching of the 20 witness. 21 BY MR. SIMPSON: 22 Q. My question is: Is it reasonable, 23 considering that the police report on its face shows 24 evidence -- let me back this up. Ask another question 25 to you. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594457 220 1 Are you aware that the police report reflects 2 that the woman I referred to who was hired to give 3 massages, told them that she never touched anyone 4 inappropriately? 5 A. I think that there are -- there is 6 information along those lines in the police report, yes. 7 Q. Okay. And so do you acknowledge that the 8 police report, on its face, reflects both reports of 9 massages that involved improper sexual contact -- 10 contact and massages that were perfectly legitimate? 11 A. Yes, but not in the same proportion. 12 Q. My question wasn't proportion. The -- the 13 report on its face, you understood, reflected that there 14 were massages given at Mr. Epstein's residence that were 15 perfectly legitimate? 16 A. Some -- it was basically a few isolated 17 examples from what I could see. 18 Q. So you would characterize what was said in 19 the police report as "a few isolated examples"? 20 A. Well, given the backdrop that they had -- 21 Q. No. My question -- it's a yes or no 22 question. Is that how you would characterize it? 23 MR. SCAROLA: Excuse me. The witness is not 24 confined to answering yes or no, if yes or no 25 would be misleading. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594458 221 1 BY MR. SIMPSON: 2 Q. It's a different position than was taken 3 previously, but -- 4 A. I mean, I was just going to give one 5 sentence, and the one sentence would be, in the context 6 of this whole police report where they had 24, 7 approximately, minor girls who were -- who were being 8 sexually abused, the references to legitimate massages I 9 would view as isolated. 10 Q. So you're coming to the conclusion, looking 11 at the police report, that they are isolated; is that 12 right? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. And do you think a fair-minded reader of the 15 police report would reach that conclusion? 16 A. Absolutely. 17 Q. And were you aware that the police report, to 18 give a bit more detail, reflected that a woman who was 19 described as having tattoos was hired to give 20 deep-tissue Swedish massages. Do you recall that being 21 in the -- in the police report? 22 A. Something along those lines, yes. 23 Q. And she also -- that woman also told the 24 police that she was not Jeffrey Epstein's type, that she 25 wasn't thin, had tattoos, didn't fit his type? ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594459 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 10 legitimate massages, correct? 11 A. Yeah. That was cover for the sex trafficking 12 that was going on. 13 Q Okay. So you're now -- does the police 14 report say "it was cover" -- 15 A. That was -- 16 Q. -- "for the sex trafficking"? 17 A. That was my conclusion when I reviewed the 18 materials. 19 Q. Okay. So your inclusion is that a 20 fair-minded reader of the police report would come to 21 that conclusion? 22 A. December 30th of 2014, knowing what we know 23 now, yes. 24 Q. Do you consider yourself a very suspicious 25 person? ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594460 223 1 A. No. 2 Q. Do you consider yourself a conspira having 3 a conspiratorial view? 4 A. Absolutely not. 5 Q. Do you consider yourself a crusader? 6 A. Well, crusader for justice, I would say, yes. 7 Q. If -- let me put it this way: In your view, 8 is evidence that a person, any person, any guest at 9 Mr. Epstein's house had a massage, evidence that that 10 person engaged in criminal sexual conduct, contact with 11 minors, because of the fact of having a massage? 12 A. You'd have to look at the context. 13 Q. On its own, is it any evidence -- doesn't 14 it -- is it any evidence at all, in your view? 15 A. It would be some evidence, yes. 16 Q. Notwithstanding that the report, on its face, 17 reflects both legitimate and illegitimate massages? 18 A. The report on its face, let's be clear, 19 reflects a lot of illegitimate sag -- massages and a 20 sporadic or isolated, you know, legitimate massages. So 21 the fact that somebody gets a massage in that context, 22 I -- I think is -- is -- raises, you know, the concerns 23 we have been talking about. 24 Q. Did you, before December 30th of 2014, 25 yourself personally, review what I think you referred to ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594461 224 1 in your testimony yesterday as the holy grail , an 2 address book of Mr. Epstein? 3 A. Pieces of it, yes. 4 Q. Did you review the entire document? 5 A. No. 6 Q. Did I understand yesterday that you 7 testified -- did I understand correctly yesterday, that 8 you testified that the fact that names were circled 9 indicated that those persons likely engaged in illegal 10 sexual contact with minors? 11 A. My -- my impression is the names that were 12 circled were circled by Alfredo Rodriguez when he was 13 busted by the FBI for involvement, and he was asked to 14 identify those who would have information about the sex 15 trafficking organization. And my -- based on all the 16 evidence I have, I believe the names that were circled 17 were those who would have that kind of information. 18 Q. So is it your testimony that if the name is 19 circled, it indicates that they have information, or 20 that they are criminals? 21 A. That they would have information about the 22 sex trafficking organization, and that would probably 23 mean that they were part of the organization. It may 24 mean that they were witnesses to what the organization 25 was doing. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594462 225 1 But they would have information that the FBI, 2 among other law enforcement agencies, should be 3 following up on, if they are trying to piece together 4 what the sex trafficking organization was doing. 5 Q. Would you agree that a fair-minded person, 6 with that background that you just described, would not 7 go to the conclusion that the fact that a name is 8 circled indicates that that person has engaged in 9 criminal conduct? 10 A. They -- what it would indicate is that they 11 had information relevant to criminal activity. Now, 12 would they on the -- just the fact that a name was 13 circled, standing alone, reach that conclusion? 14 Well, that's a hypothetical question because 15 obviously in this case, there's lots of other 16 information. 17 Q. Did you understand -- it is true, is it not, 18 that Mr. Rodriguez was trying to sell that book? 19 A. That's true. 20 Q. And is it not also true that the people who 21 are circled are famous people? 22 A. I'd have to refresh my recollection as to 23 exactly who was circled, but I know that some famous 24 people were circled and some famous people were not 25 circled. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594463 226 1 Q. Would it be a reasonable inference, or a 2 possible reasonable inference to draw, that 3 Mr. Rodriguez was trying to highlight people who would 4 be of interest to the Press for purposes of selling the 5 book? 6 A. No, because he was not talking to the Press. 7 He was talking to an FBI agent who had busted him for 8 criminal activity. And so I was assuming that what he 9 was trying to do, as many criminals do when they are 10 apprehended, was give information to law enforcement 11 agency that would be helpful so that they can catch 12 other "bigger fishes" is the phrase that's sometimes 13 used, so that the little fish would -- would get off or 14 get a cooperation deal from the law enforcement agency. 15 He was talking -- let's be clear. He was 16 talking to somebody he understood was an FBI agent at 17 the time, and so that was the context of the 18 conversation. 19 Q. Do you have any personal knowledge that it's 20 in the context of talking to the FBI that Mr. Rodriguez 21 circled those names? 22 A. I have reviewed -- I know I could refresh my 23 recollection here, but there's an FBI 302, a report of 24 interview of the circumstances surrounding 25 Mr. Rodriguez's arrest, and I believe I reviewed that ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594464 227 1 302. 2 Q. Do you know whether the FBI, at any point, 3 contacted Professor Dershowitz to discuss any evidence 4 he might have after his name was circled on this 5 document? 6 A. I don't have personal knowledge of what the 7 FBI did to follow up after that. 8 Q. Okay. One of the names that's circled in the 9 book is Courtney Love. Do you know who she is? 10 A. Not off the top of my head, no. 11 Q. If I mention to you or if I represent that 12 she's a famous actress, any reason to question that? 13 A. No. 14 Q. In your view, was Courtney Love involved in 15 sex trafficking? 16 A. I don't know. 17 Q. In your view, was Courtney Love a witness to 18 sex trafficking? 19 A. If -- is there a way -- are you representing 20 her name is circled? 21 Q. Her name is circled on the book. In fact, we 22 can show it -- 23 A. Okay. Yeah. 24 Q. It is circled on the book. 25 A. Okay. Sure. Yeah, I mean, my -- my ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594465 228 1 understanding would be that if her -- and this is -- 2 could I ask a question about the circling -- or your 3 representation? 4 Is the circling the same type of circling 5 that is done for Mr. Dershowitz, for example? Is it the 6 same, you know, handwriting, same ink, same -- same 7 appearance? You know, if it's consistent with the 8 circling -- are you representing it's consistent with 9 the circling? 10 Q. Mr. Cassell , we have a document produced in 11 discovery that has various names circled. Looking at 12 the document, I don't see any difference among the 13 circles. Are you aware of any document -- 14 MR. SCAROLA: Could we have a look -- could 15 we see the document? 16 MR. SIMPSON: Take a -- go off the record for 17 one moment. 18 THE WITNESS: We are going off the video 19 record, 10:03. 20 (Thereupon, a recess was taken.) 21 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are back on the video 22 record, 10:08 a.m. 23 MR. SIMPSON: Okay. Back on the record. I'm 24 going to ask the reporter to mark as Cassell 25 Exhibit 5, a multi -page document. It's a copy of ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594466 229 1 the address book we have been speaking about, and 2 ask that Doc -- Mr. Cassell to take a look at 3 this, and I'm going to ask him about certain of 4 the entries. 5 (Cassell's I.D. Exhibit No. 5 - copy of 6 address book was marked for identification.) 7 MR. SIMPSON: And I will note, I put a few 8 flags on here -- 9 THE WITNESS: Sure. 10 MR. SIMPSON: -- to direct your attention -- 11 THE WITNESS: Correct, yeah. 12 MR. SIMPSON: -- which we can -- I'll note 13 the pages for the record just so we have them. 14 38, 76, and 85. 15 THE WITNESS: Okay. I just -- I just want to 16 take two minutes or so -- 17 BY MR. SIMPSON: 18 Q. Yeah. Take -- take a moment to look at it. 19 A. Okay. I want to make a few notes, if that's 20 all right, just to get them in -- 21 Q. You're going to mark on the -- 22 A. No, not on the exhibit. I'm just going to 23 make notes to refresh my recollection so we don't have 24 to take time. I'm just -- I'm just making notes of the 25 context here. This will just take another minute is ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594467 230 1 all . 2 Q. Take as long as you want to look at the 3 document. 4 A. Super. Thank you. 5 Okay. Yeah. I think I'm -- I'm oriented 6 now. But I haven't looked at the Love entry. 7 Q. My -- my first -- 8 A. I want to look at the Love -- 9 Q. -- question is: Is this a copy of the 10 address book that you referred to in your testimony? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. Okay. And if you would take a look at the 13 I've marked the entries for Courtney Love. Take a look 14 at that one. 15 A. All right. I see it. 16 Q. Okay. And then if you look at the last 17 entry, there's an entry for Professor Dershowitz that's 18 also circled. It should be on the flag. It's 19 two-sided. 20 A. Oh, yeah. 21 Q. Do you see that one? 22 A. I see it 23 Q. And then also the other one I marked is 24 Donald Trump. 25 A. Yes. Got it. I see those entries circled. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594468 231 1 Q. So am I right -- I'm right, am I not, that 2 among the others circled are: Courtney Love, Donald 3 Trump, and Alan Dershowitz, correct? 4 A. Correct, among the others, yes. 5 Q. And they are all circled in the same way; are 6 they not? 7 A. Yeah. It's kind of a -- a box is what I 8 would say. Some, yes. 9 Q. Is there anything on the face of that 10 document that leads you to conclude that the circling 11 the significance of the circling is any different for 12 one person than another? 13 A. No. 14 Q. So based on the document, do you infer that 15 Courtney Love was involved in some kind of sexual abuse 16 of minors? 17 A. I would infer that if I were running a 18 criminal investigation through the FBI and I'm trying to 19 find people who would have relevant information, she 20 would be one of the people I'd want to talk to. I mean, 21 the names that are circled here, Glenn Maxwell, one of 22 the identified traffickers, Epstein is circled, the 23 pilot -- one of the pilots is circled. So it's these 24 people that all seemed to be connected are -- are all 25 being marked here, and -- and the number of people that ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594469 232 1 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. I 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 10 was his insurance policy, I think he said, against that 11 happening. 12 MR. SIMPSON: Object to the nonresponsive 13 portion of the answer. 14 BY MR. SIMPSON: 15 Q. Is the answer to my question: You don't know 16 whether it was Jeffrey Epstein's or Glenn Maxwell's 17 address book? 18 A. I don't know. And the reason I don't know 19 that is because I actually believe it is neither -- 20 neither of their -- that's -- is it one or the other? 21 Actually, I think it's a third possibility. I think 22 this was Alfredo Rodriguez's insurance policy against 23 getting knocked off by Jeffrey Epstein. 24 Q. So that's the view you have of the 25 significance of this document? ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594470 233 1 A. Yes. In part. I mean, there are other 2 reasons it's significant, as we have been talking about, 3 names are circled who appear to have relevant 4 information on Jeffrey Epstein's criminal activities. 5 Q. Donald Trump was a friend of Jeffrey Epstein; 6 is that not correct? 7 A. I really don't -- my understanding is, yes, 8 but I -- I don't have a lot of information about Trump. 9 Q. It's true also, is it not, that Mr. Trump was 10 a frequent visitor to Mr. Epstein's residence? 11 A. I -- I know that he visited frequent. I -- I 12 don't have a lot of information about Trump. 13 Q. And his name is circled in this book; is it 14 not? 15 A. I believe it is. 16 Q. Based on him -- assuming he's a frequent 17 visitor to Mr. Epstein's home, and that he's a friend of 18 Mr. Epstein's, and that his name is circled in this 19 book, do you infer that he was engaged in criminal 20 sexual abuse of minors? 21 MS. McCAWLEY: I'm going to object to the 22 extent that your answer would reveal anything 23 that my client has told you. 24 THE WITNESS: No. 25 ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594471 234 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 10 somebody is running an investigation into the 11 organization, so... 12 Q. Did you, in the course of your representation 13 of IIII or any of the other Jane Doe clients you 14 have had who have had claims against Mr. Epstein, make 15 any effort to find out whether Mr. Trump had abused any 16 of them? 17 MR. EDWARDS: I would just object to this 18 being work-product privilege as it relates to 19 other cases that I'm working on with Paul that 20 Jack is not involved in. 21 MR. SIMPSON: Okay. 22 MR. EDWARDS: With respect to what we did 23 during our investigation on behalf of other 24 clients. 25 MR. SIMPSON: Okay. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594472 235 1 MS. McCAWLEY: Right. And I object on that 2 to the extent that it reveals anything you did on 3 behalf of 4 MR. EDWARDS: I don't think Jack would know 5 to object to this, but because I know of another 6 case that we work on, that's protected by our 7 work-product privilege, who I talked to and who I 8 did not. 9 THE WITNESS: I'd like to -- 10 MR. SCAROLA: In that case, I instruct you 11 not to answer. 12 THE WITNESS: All right. 13 MR. SIMPSON: All right. You're here, 14 Mr. Edwards, as a client, not an attorney, 15 correct? 16 MR. EDWARDS: Yes. That's my primary role in 17 being here, but I'm going to protect the 18 privilege to the extent that it's not being 19 protected by others who don't recognize that the 20 privilege needs to be protected on other matters. 21 MR. SIMPSON: Okay. 22 BY MR. SIMPSON: 23 Q. Mr. Cassell , as of December 30th of 2014, 24 were you aware that Professor Dershowitz had visited 25 Mr. Epstein's home and stayed as a guest for a week in ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594473 236 1 the company of his grandchildren, among other family 2 members? 3 A. I'm sorry. Which residence? Which Epstein 4 residence? 5 Q. Palm Beach. 6 A. Can you -- can you restate? 7 Q. Yes. 8 A. I mean that's kind of a compound question. I 9 mean... 10 Q. Well, let me rephrase it. I will be clear. 11 A. Yeah. 12 Q. Were you aware as of December 30th of 2014 -- 13 let me back up a moment. 14 A. Sure. 15 Q. You indicated yesterday that part of the 16 basis for your conclusion that this pleading -- it was 17 appropriate to file this pleading accusing Professor 18 Dershowitz of misconduct was that he was a guest at the 19 Palm Beach house, correct? 20 A. No. It was more than that. He was a 21 frequent guest, a frequent overnight guest. 22 Q. My question is: As of December 30th, 2014, 23 were you aware that Professor Dershowitz had spent a 24 week at the Palm Beach house with family members, 25 including his grandchildren? ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594474 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 9 mean, you know, so -- you know, it would depend on the 10 circumstances. 11 MR. SCAROLA: Are you representing that 12 Jeffrey Epstein was there at the time? 13 MR. SIMPSON: I'm not answering questions. 14 I'm asking questions. 15 MR. SCAROLA: Oh, okay. 16 BY MR. SIMPSON: 17 Q. So, in your view, you can -- let me -- let me 18 rephrase that. 19 You say it would depend on the 20 circumstances -- 21 A. Sure. Sure. 22 Q. -- that's your answer? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. Okay. So that you don't find it incongruous 25 that someone who knows that a particular home is the ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594475 238 1 scene of ongoing criminal abuse of minors, and who 2 himself, has engaged in that criminal abuse, would bring 3 his grandchildren to stay there for a week? 4 A. It would depend on the circumstances. 5 Q. When you say that Professor Dershowitz was a 6 regular guest at the mansion, at the Palm Beach house, 7 it's correct, is it not, that you're referring to a 8 period after had left for Thailand? 9 A. No. 10 Q. Are you aware of any evidence -- let me back 11 that up. 12 Are -- during the period that 13 contends she was sexually abused, which I 14 understand to be middle of 1999 to middle of 2002 -- is 15 that consistent with your understanding? 16 A. Approximately, yes. 17 Q. -- how many times did Professor Dershowitz 18 visit the Palm Beach mansion during that period? 19 A. My understanding is in the neighborhood of -- 20 what was it? Three to five times a year, staying two to 21 three nights at a time. 22 Q. And was that your understanding as of 23 December 30th of 2014? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. What was the basis for your understanding, ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594476 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. 8 Q. -- on the case. 9 A. I appreciate that. 10 Q. I just want to say, you've testified that you 11 understood as of December 30th, 2014, that Professor 12 Dershowitz had -- was a visitor at the Palm Beach 13 mansion three to five times during this relevant period 14 of 1999 to -- middle of 1999 to the middle of 2002. 15 What was the basis on December 30th of 2014, for just 16 that fact? 17 A. Right. I mean, I will take about a minute 18 here because there are a few things I want -- 19 Q. Okay. And I want to make sure my question is 20 clear. 21 A. Sure. 22 Q. I'm not asking you about any of your 23 inferences about anything else. Just, what's the basis 24 for your belief that he visited three to five times 25 during that two-year period? ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594477 240 1 MR. SCAROLA: Could I ask for a 2 clarification? Are you looking only for direct 3 evidence and you want to exclude the 4 circumstantial evidence? Is that the way you 5 want to -- 6 MR. SIMPSON: I'm asking. You can object to 7 the form. 8 BY MR. SIMPSON: 9 Q. My question is: What was -- what were you -- 10 what did you have in mind as supporting your conclusion 11 or belief that he -- that Professor Dershowitz visited 12 three to five times during that relevant period? 13 MS. McCAWLEY: And I'm sorry. Can I just 14 place an objection on the record. I'm going to 15 object to the extent that -- so that you do not 16 reveal attorney/client privileged communication, 17 unless it's something that's already public that 18 she's revealed. 19 THE WITNESS: Okay. Right. So I'm going to 20 just exclude -- I take it your question isn't 21 asking about any communications. 22 BY MR. SIMPSON: 23 Q. My question is asking about that, but I 24 understand you're going to refuse to provide it. 25 MS. McCAWLEY: Unless it's already public. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594478 241 1 THE WITNESS: Okay. So as of December 30th, 2 I'm going to exclude any communications from 3 from -- 4 MR. SCAROLA: Except to extent that they have 5 already been made public. That is, if she has 6 given express permission to make disclosures, 7 these were not confidential communications, but 8 communications intended to be communicated to 9 third parties, then you are permitted to include 10 information from in your 11 response to that extent. And I -- go ahead. 12 THE WITNESS: Okay. 13 BY MR. SIMPSON: 14 Q. As of December 15 A. Right. 16 Q. -- 30th, 2014 -- 17 A. Right. 18 Q. -- correct? So -- 19 A. Yeah, that's right. 20 Q. -- any -- any public statements by her after 21 December 30th, 2014 would not be included in the answer. 22 A. Okay. 23 MS. McCAWLEY: But let me be clear. Let me 24 be clear about my objection. To the extent that 25 she revealed something to you in a nonprivileged ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594479 242 1 context, in other words, information that was 2 going to be disclosed, not for advice, but 3 factual information that she intended to 4 disclose, that's no -- that's not privileged. 5 But if it's something that she communicated to 6 you in confidence with respect to getting legal 7 advice, then that would be privileged. 8 THE WITNESS: Right. Okay. So Juan Alessi's 9 deposition, Alfredo Rodriguez's deposition, and 10 then considerable circumstantial evidence which 11 we don't have to rehash here involving the close 12 personal association between Epstein and 13 Dershowitz. 14 I mean, again, we can rehash all of that, but 15 those were -- those are -- that's kind of a 16 quick -- because I know you want to get to a lot 17 of questions -- that's a quick sort of highlight 18 film, if you will. 19 BY MR. SIMPSON: 20 Q. Mr. Cassell , isn't it true that Mr. Rodriguez 21 was not hired until several years after the Summer -- 22 A. 2004. 23 Q. Let me ask it again. 24 -- until well after 2002? 25 A. Yeah, about 2004. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594480 243 1 Q. And Mr. Rodriguez would have no personal 2 knowledge of how often Professor Dershowitz visited 3 during a period two years or three years before he was 4 hired; isn't that true? 5 A. So, look, this is -- this is why I was trying 6 to speed up the answer to the question. We have a sex 7 trafficking organization that is running a common scheme 8 and plan that is continuing on until it was interrupted 9 by law enforcement about 2005 and 2006. 10 So what the -- the criminal organization is 11 doing in 2004, unless I have some significant evidence 12 that it's different than what was going on in 2002, 13 2001, 2000, 1999, I think it's reasonable to conclude 14 that the same sort of criminal activities are going on 15 later. 16 So if -- if you want -- if you want me to get 17 into the -- the full scope of the criminal organization, 18 we can get into it. But the fact that somebody in 2004 19 sees this going on, leads me to conclude that it's 20 probably the same thing going on in the absence of other 21 information in 2001. 22 Q. So from Mr. Rodriguez's testimony about what 23 was going on, so to speak -- and my question related, 24 what was going on the number of times that Professor 25 Dershowitz visited. That's the topic. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594481 24 ,1 1 A. Right. 2 Q. That because he visited, according to 3 Mr. Rodriguez, several times a year in 2004, 2005, he 4 must have visited several times a year in 2000 -- 19- -- 5 middle of 1999 to the middle of 2002. 6 A. I didn't say must have. I said that that's 7 going to be evidence of the common scheme and plan, and 8 then, in the absence of, you know, some falling out 9 between people or somebody becoming, you know, more 10 associated or less associated with a criminal 11 organization. I mean, if you want to get into the 12 circumstantial evidence, in 2003, there's an article on 13 which, you know, Dershowitz identifies himself -- 14 Q. Let me interrupt you because I'm asking -- 15 A. Okay. 16 Q. -- about -- my only question is evidence of 17 how -- not anything, whether engaged in conduct or 18 didn't engage in conduct, just how many times he came 19 during this period. 20 A. Right. 21 MR. SCAROLA: Excuse me, counsel. That's the 22 reason why I asked you to clarify whether you 23 want to limit this to direct evidence or whether 24 you want all of the evidence including 25 circumstantial evidence, because as we both know, ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594482 24.; 1 circumstantial evidence is good evidence. A 2 well-connected chain of circumstance can be -- 3 MR. SIMPSON: We really don't need a speech. 4 MR. SCAROLA: -- a well-connected -- 5 MR. SIMPSON: We really don't -- 6 MR. SCAROLA: -- chain of circumstance may be 7 as compelling proof as direct evidence of a given 8 fact. That's the law. 9 If you don't want -- 10 MR. SIMPSON: Really, sir. 11 MR. SCAROLA: -- the circumstantial 12 evidence 13 MR. SIMPSON: Mr. Scarola -- 14 MR. SCAROLA: -- tell us that. 15 MR. SIMPSON: -- please don't make speeches, 16 and please don't coach the witness. 17 MR. SCAROLA: Just tell us that. I'm not 18 coaching the witness. I'm asking you -- you're 19 asking ambiguous questions. 20 MR. SIMPSON: There's nothing ambiguous -- 21 MR. SCAROLA: If you want only direct 22 evidence, we will give you only direct evidence. 23 If you want a full and complete answer, it's 24 got to include circumstantial evidence, so don't 25 cut him off when he's giving you that. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594483 246 1 MR. SIMPSON: Really, objecting to the form 2 of the question preserves all of any problems 3 there may be with the question. 4 MR. SCAROLA: No, sir. 5 MR. SIMPSON: We don't need a speech. 6 MR. SCAROLA: It doesn't. It doesn't. 7 BY MR. SIMPSON: 8 Q. Mr. Cassell , is it your testimony that, from 9 Mr. Rodriguez's testimony about how often he says 10 Professor Dershowitz visited in a 2004/2005 time frame, 11 it's fair to draw an inference about how often he 12 visited in an earlier -- three-year earlier time frame? 13 A. In the circumstances of this case, 14 absolutely. 15 Q. And would it be fair to infer from the number 16 of times that Donald Trump visited three years later, 17 how often he visited at an earlier period? 18 A. I did not investigate the circumstances 19 involving Trump. He wasn't somebody that was coming up. 20 Q. Were you aware on December 30th of 2014 that 21 Donald Trump was quoted in Vanity Fair as saying: "I've 22 known Jeff" -- referring to Epstein -- oh, I'm sorry. 23 It was a New Yorker Magazine, not Vanity Fair. That he 24 was quoted as saying: "I've known Jeff" -- referring to 25 Epstein -- "for 15 years. Terrific guy. And he's a lot ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594484 247 1 of fun to be with." It even said that: "He likes 2 beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on 3 the younger side. No doubt about it, Jeffrey enjoys the 4 social -- social life"? Were you aware of that on 5 December 30th, 2014? 6 A. Possibly. I mean that sounds vaguely 7 familiar. Trump has just not been somebody that -- that 8 I've paid much attention to in this case. 9 Q. Based on that statement, and the facts we 10 discussed earlier about Mr. Trump visiting and being a 11 friend, and the other circumstances we discussed, are 12 you suspicious about whether he engaged in sexual 13 misconduct with minors? 14 MS. McCAWLEY: I'm going to object to the 15 extent that you can't reveal anything that my 16 client has informed you of. 17 THE WITNESS: Right. If we set aside that 18 information, I'm not -- I'm not suspicious, no, 19 not given the information I have. 20 BY MR. SIMPSON: 21 Q. Okay. So notwithstanding that his name is 22 circled in the address book, he was a good friend, he 23 visited often, and he was quoted as saying that Jeff was 24 a terrific guy who liked young women almost as much as 25 Trump did, you're not even suspicious? ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594485 248 1 A. Not -- you know, let's break that down in a 2 couple pieces. 3 The fact that his name is circled, if I were 4 running an FBI investigation, I'd go send somebody to 5 see what he knew about it, but no, it would take a lot 6 more for me to become suspicious that somebody is 7 involved in -- in sexual activity like that. 8 Q. Okay. So you would agree with me then, that 9 the fact that a person often visited the mansion, the 10 person -- the fact that a person was a friend of 11 Mr. Epstein for 15 years, the fact that the person had 12 stated publicly that: "Mr. Epstein liked young women 13 almost as much as I do myself," and the fact that the 14 name is circled in the address book is not sufficient to 15 raise a suspicion that that person engaged in sexual 16 misconduct? 17 A. So... 18 Q. Yes or no. It's a yes or no question. 19 A. It requires -- 20 MR. SCAROLA: You're not required to answer 21 yes or no, if a yes or no response alone would be 22 misleading. 23 THE WITNESS: The problem is the word 24 "suspicion." I'm not particularly suspicious on 25 those facts, but it -- you know, what do you mean ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594486 249 1 by "suspicion"? If I -- if I were running an FBI 2 investigation and somebody circled a name as -- 3 as saying, look, this fellow may have some 4 information, I'd go follow up on that. 5 If you say that's suspicion, then the answer 6 would be, yes. But I -- you know, based on that 7 information alone, no. I mean that -- that 8 wouldn't -- wouldn't be enough for me to, you 9 know, invest time and energy into that particular 10 possibility. 11 BY MR. SIMPSON: 12 Q. Okay. So none of those facts are sufficient 13 even to justify spending time and energy, correct? 14 A. Unless -- if I'm running -- this is -- again, 15 what do you mean by "suspicion"? Time and energy in the 16 context of somebody who is running a pro bono case with 17 limited resources to try to figure out what the sex 18 trafficking ring's going to do, I'm not going to chase 19 after that rabbit. It seems farfetched. 20 I'm going to focus my efforts on the people 21 who appear to be more directly involved. 22 Q. Okay. So based on the facts that I gave you 23 a moment ago, you think it's farfetched that Donald 24 Trump was engaged in abusing minors? 25 A. If that's all I had, I would not invest time ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594487 250 1 and energy in that, right. 2 Q. And you referred to your pro bono case. What 3 is your best estimate of how much money you have made 4 representing victims of Jeffrey Epstein? 5 A. In which case are we talking about now? 6 Q. Any -- any case representing a victim of 7 Jeffrey Epstein. 8 A. I need to confer with -- 9 MS. McCAWLEY: Yeah. I'm going to object. 10 BY MR. SIMPSON: 11 Q. And that -- that's a fact -- that's not a 12 privileged question. That's a factual question. 13 A. Factual. Well, there are -- there are -- 14 Q. Just how much money? You don't have to tell 15 me who the clients are. Just how much money? 16 A. Okay. I need to -- 17 MR. SIMPSON: There's a question pending. I 18 object to a break. There's no possible 19 privilege. 20 MR. SCAROLA: He has a privilege -- he has a 21 privilege question. He wants to consult with 22 counsel. 23 MR. SIMPSON: Well , really? My question is 24 how much money, and that's privileged? 25 MR. SCAROLA: It may be. I don't know. We ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594488 251 1 need to talk. 2 THE WITNESS: That's why I need to -- 3 MR. SCOTT: There's no federal law or state 4 law that supports that financial information and 5 fees is privileged. 6 MS. McCAWLEY: We can argue about that 7 because that's in my motion, so we can argue 8 about that. 9 MR. SIMPSON: Well , can -- can -- 10 MR. SCOTT: That one, I know all about. 11 MR. SCAROLA: You're objecting to our taking 12 a break -- 13 MR. SIMPSON: I am objecting -- 14 MR. SCAROLA: -- while this question is 15 pending? 16 MR. SIMPSON: That's correct. 17 MR. SCAROLA: It is our position that the 18 witness has a legal question about privilege. We 19 are going to take a break. We are going to talk 20 about it. It may turn out that it's not a 21 problem at all. I don't know. 22 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are going off the video 23 record, 10:38. 24 MR. SIMPSON: With my note, we are taking a 25 break over my objection. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594489 252 1 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: 10:38. 2 (Thereupon, a recess was taken.) 3 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are back on the video 4 record, 10:49 a.m. 5 BY MR. SIMPSON: 6 Q. Back on the record. My question, 7 Mr. Cassell, was: What is your best estimate of how 8 much money you have made representing victims of Jeffrey 9 Epstein? 10 A. In which case are we talking about? 11 Q. In -- in any case. Combined total. 12 A. Okay. With regard to the CVRA case, that's 13 pro bono, no money there. With regard to the other 14 cases, I'd like to answer your question, but due to 15 confidentiality obligations that have been imposed upon 16 me by Jeffrey Epstein, in the course of negotiating 17 those cases, I'm not permitted to answer that question. 18 MR. SCAROLA: We are certainly willing to 19 respond appropriately to a court order in that 20 regard, but it requires a court order to release 21 us from the contractual confidentiality 22 obligations that we are under. 23 BY MR. SIMPSON: 24 Q. Is it your testimony, Mr. Cassell , that there 25 are confidentiality agreements with Mr. Epstein that ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594490 253 1 preclude you from giving the total amount paid without 2 breaking it down into particular cases? 3 A. I'm sorry. I didn't understand. 4 Q. Oh, maybe that wasn't clear. Let me do it 5 this way so we avoid -- 6 A. Yeah. 7 Q. -- the confidentiality issues. 8 In how many cases have you been counsel for a 9 person suing Mr. Epstein alleging that she was a victim? 10 A. Counsel of record? 11 Q. Put it this way. How -- well, start with 12 that, counsel of record. 13 A. I believe three. 14 Q. Okay. And in addition to those three, have 15 you assisted other counsel in some way without becoming 16 counsel of record in cases by women suing Mr. Epstein 17 alleging that they had been abused? 18 A. I believe there's one other case in addition 19 to the counsel of record case. 20 Q. And without telling me -- 21 A. I'd -- I'd have to go double-check my record. 22 This is an approximate best recollection. 23 Q. All right. 24 A. It's about four. 25 Q. To the best of your recollection, you were ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594491 254 1 counsel of record in three cases and you were involved 2 in another case -- at least one other case in which you 3 did not appear -- 4 A. That's right. 5 Q. -- as counsel of record; is that correct? 6 A. That's -- that's my recollection right now, 7 yeah. 8 Q. All right. How many of those cases have been 9 resolved at this point? 10 A. All . All -- of the four, I recall all four 11 have been resolved. 12 Q. Okay. Without telling me the amount, did you 13 receive -- all four were settled; is that right? 14 A. Correct. 15 Q. Without telling me the amount, is it correct 16 that in all four of those cases, you received a legal 17 fee? 18 A. I think that starts to call for a question I 19 need to consult with my attorney about. 20 Q. Simply the question of whether in each of 21 them you received a fee? 22 A. I just want to... 23 THE WITNESS: Is -- is there any problem -- 24 MR. SCAROLA: You can respond to that. You 25 can answer yes or no to that question. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594492 255 THE WITNESS: Yes, I received something. 2 BY MR. SIMPSON: 3 Q. Okay. Was the fee -- and if it's different 4 for the -- the cases, tell me, but was it a contingent 5 fee or some kind of hourly fee? 6 MR. SCAROLA: That -- that does get into 7 attorney/client privileged matters. The terms -- 8 MR. SIMPSON: You're instructing him not to 9 answer? 10 MR. SCAROLA: -- the terms of the 11 representation are attorney/client privilege. I 12 instruct him not to answer. 13 MR. SIMPSON: All right. 14 BY MR. SIMPSON: 15 Q. In addition to these four cases that have 16 been resolved, are you representing any other clients 17 who are alleging, in a case seeking monetary damages, 18 that they were abused by Jeffrey Epstein? 19 A. I -- 20 MS. McCAWLEY: I'm going to object to the 21 extent that this seeks any information related to 22 that could be deemed privileged 23 or confidential. 24 THE WITNESS: So what's the... 25 ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594493 256 1 BY MR. SIMPSON: 2 Q. I'm -- I'm trying to close a loop here. 3 A. Yeah. 4 Q. I'm asking whether you were involved in any 5 other cases in which claims have been made against 6 Jeffrey Epstein for damages that are still active; they 7 have not been resolved? 8 A. So we are talking civil cases, unresolved 9 civil cases against Jeffrey Epstein right now? 10 Q. Unresolved cases seeking money from Jeffrey 11 Epstein. 12 MR. SCAROLA: And to the extent that that 13 question calls for matters that are of public 14 record, then, obviously, you can respond. 15 THE WITNESS: Right. Yeah. None. 16 BY MR. SIMPSON: 17 Q. Are there -- and I'm not asking for the name. 18 Are there any not of public record that -- 19 A. What would be a "not"? 20 Q. Well, if you had made a claim that's not in 21 suit, for example. 22 A. Oh, against Jeffrey Epstein? 23 Q. Yes. 24 A. Yeah. No, I don't -- I don't think there's 25 anything. Yeah, no -- no claims against Epstein, right. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594494 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 claims? 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? 10 Q. Yes, if you're successful. 11 A. I haven't really -- that sounds pretty 12 speculative. I haven't really thought about the 13 civil -- the focus of the CVRA case is criminal . I 14 haven't thought about, you know, whether, civil claims 15 could somehow arise out of that. I mean, we are talking 16 about, you know, events that took place long ago. There 17 would be statute of limitations issues, you know. 18 Whether they are viable civil claims at this point has 19 not been something that I have, you know, given much 20 thought to. 21 Q. So is it your testimony then that you have 22 not thought about the question of whether success in the 23 CVRA case may or result in you obtaining additional 24 clients with claims for money damages against Jeffrey 25 Epstein? ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594495 258 1 A. Yeah. That hasn't been something that I have 2 focused on, no. I mean... 3 Q. It is -- it is correct, is it not, that you 4 anticipate that if you are successful in setting aside 5 the nonprosecution agreement, that the names of 6 additional victims will become known; didn't you testify 7 to that yesterday? 8 A. I -- I'm not -- I must be confused here. I 9 don't remember. 10 Q. Well, wait -- I don't want to -- you know, 11 let me ask the question -- 12 A. Yeah. 13 Q. -- rather than my recollection. 14 A. Yeah, yeah. That's what I'm not... 15 Q. My question is: Do you anticipate that if 16 you're successful in setting aside the nonprosecution 17 agreement, that the names of additional victims will 18 become known? 19 A. Additional Epstein victims at this point? 20 Q. Yes. 21 A. Again, it's pretty speculative. The -- 22 the issue -- you know, the case, you know, the events 23 were roughly a decade ago. I mean, we are always hoping 24 that there might be somebody additional that would come 25 forward, but that hasn't been the focus of the ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594496 259 1 litigation. 2 Q. Whether -- 3 A. And you always hope that there are -- yeah, I 4 mean, any time you file a case, ah, I hope some more, 5 you know, witnesses will come forward to support that 6 case, but that hasn't been the focus, trying to secure 7 additional -- additional witnesses. That is a 8 possibility, though. I mean, I think in fairness to 9 your question, that is a possibility that, you know, 10 if -- if the case attracts attention and -- and 11 somebody, you know, says, you know, gosh, now that I -- 12 I -- I -- you know, I moved away to escape Epstein and 13 now it's safe for me to come back, or -- or now I 14 realize I have a claim, that's always a possibility. 15 I certainly wouldn't want to suggest that, 16 you know, we are ruling that possibility out. 17 Q. And for the same reason that additional 18 witnesses might become available -- known, additional 19 clients might become known, correct? 20 A. That is a theoretical possibility, yes. 21 Q. In these four cases that you mentioned, the 22 three that were, which you were counsel of record and 23 one in which you were not, did you meet at any time in 24 person with the clients? And if it's different as to 25 some than others, tell me that, but -- ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594497 260 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. In all four, you met with the clients? 3 A. In three of the four. 4 Q. And were those three the three in which you 5 were counsel of record? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. As of December 8 A. I believe I was counsel of record on all 9 three of those. I would have to double-check. I know I 10 was counsel of record in the federal case. The two of 11 them are state cases, I believe, that it was pro hac in 12 the state cases. 13 Q. Okay. I won't ask you the names, but in the 14 four cases, what are the initials of your clients? 15 A. Okay. So the -- the -- 16 Q. Put it this way: How are they identified in 17 the caption that you filed? 18 A. Well, also the three that were filed, one 19 was -- one was the initials S.R. I referred to 20 S.R. yesterday. That was the Jane Doe case in 21 Federal Court in front of Judge Marra. 22 There were two state claims. I'll -- I'll 23 identify the clients as E.W. and L.M. 24 Q. And then the fourth one? 25 A. The fourth one, I believe -- the initial M. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594498 261 1 and I believe the last initial was B., but I may be 2 wrong about the B. First initial M. 3 Q. At the -- okay. At the time that you filed 4 the joinder motion -- 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. -- in the federal case, so December 30th of 7 2014, you knew that naming Prince Andrew would generate 8 substantial publicity, correct? 9 A. I knew it would attract a lot of attention. 10 Yeah, I mean, "substantial" we could debate, but, sure, 11 I knew that that was going to -- you know, once you 12 start exposing the extent of this criminal activity, 13 obviously, there were going to be a lot of people 14 interested, yes. 15 Q. And you also knew that naming Professor 16 Dershowitz would attract publicity? 17 A. Well, when you say "naming," one of the 18 things you've got to understand is the names were 19 already in the case, both Prince Andrew and Alan 20 Dershowitz. We had pending discovery requests for 21 information about both of them. So when you say "naming 22 them," you know, they were already named in the case. 23 Now, would the additional allegations have 24 attracted additional attention? Sure. 25 Q. Mr. Cassell , it's true, is it not, that the ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594499 262 1 filing on December 30th of 2014, was the first time that 2 you had ever, yes, ever on behalf of or 3 any other client, accused Professor Dershowitz or 4 Prince Andrew of sexual abuse in a public filing? 5 A. If you're talking about direct allegation, 6 that's correct. 7 Q. Had you ever public -- well, at no other time 8 that -- you expected when you filed the pleading on 9 December 30th, 2014, that it would be -- be something of 10 public record that would generate publicity, correct? 11 A. Public record, the focus was not generating 12 publicity. Of course, when you file an allegation like 13 that, there certainly would have been -- we would 14 anticipate there would have been publicity, absolutely. 15 Q. And before December 30th of 2014, to the best 16 of your knowledge, neither you, nor anyone else, had 17 told Professor Dershowitz that there were allegations 18 that he personally had engaged in sexual misconduct? 19 A. Um... 20 MS. McCAWLEY: I'm going to object to that 21 date if that reveals anything that would be 22 privileged between something that would have been 23 communicated by the client. 24 MR. SIMPSON: No. These are communications 25 to Professor Dershowitz. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594500 263 1 MR. SCAROLA: Yes. And that could very well 2 include attorney/client privileged 3 communications. 4 MR. SIMPSON: Let me -- I'll ask my question. 5 BY MR. SIMPSON: 6 Q. My question is: Did you ever advise 7 Professor Dershowitz that there were allegations that he 8 had engaged, himself, in sexual misconduct with minors? 9 A. Not me personally, no. 10 Q. Are you aware of any e-mail, letter, other 11 communication from anybody that went to Professor 12 Dershowitz that told Professor Dershowitz that he had 13 been accused of engaging in misconduct himself? 14 A. Well, there -- I mean, I'm aware that there 15 was a deposition request in 2009. There was a 16 deposition request in 2011. That was accompanied by an 17 exchange of correspondence that said, for example, 18 numerous witnesses have placed you in the presence of 19 Jeffrey Epstein and underaged girls. It didn't then go 20 on to say, and you were committing sexual abuse of them, 21 but it said numerous witnesses had -- had done that. 22 And I think a reasonable inference would be 23 that, you know, you're verily sure that a witness and 24 then that also raises the possibility of -- well, I 25 mean, I think Professor Dershowitz mentioned yesterday, ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594501 264 1 that if you're in the presence of a convicted sex 2 offender, or a sex offender and sex abuse is going on, 3 you would have obligations, for example, at a minimum to 4 report that, and it raises the possibility of other 5 criminal activity as well . 6 Q. Is it your testimony, Mr. Cassell , that 7 telling a person that multiple people have identified 8 you as a witness to some activity is fair notice that 9 you, yourself, are accused of engaging in criminal 10 misconduct? 11 A. So -- so you, I think, recharacterized the 12 letter that went to Mr. Dershowitz in 2011. The letter, 13 as I recall, doesn't say he is a witness. It says, if I 14 recall -- we can double-check the language -- but I 15 believe the language says: Numerous witnesses have 16 placed you in the presence of Jeffrey Epstein, underaged 17 girls, and Epstein. Then, you know, so at that point, 18 given what we know in this case, given that at that 19 point in 2011, there had been an ongoing set of 20 allegations against Mr. Epstein, I -- I think your 21 question doesn't -- doesn't take into account this 22 surrounding context. 23 Not to mention the fact there had been a 2009 24 deposition request and a 2013 document request. 25 Q. Okay. I think you accurately characterized ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594502 265 1 the communication about the deposition request that 2 multiple persons have placed you in the presence -- 3 A. Right. 4 Q. -- of minors -- 5 A. Right. 6 Q. -- correct? 7 A. I believe that's my recollection. Numerous 8 witnesses have placed you in the presence of sex 9 offend -- at that point, convicted sex offender Jeffrey 10 Epstein, who was convicted of sexually abusing underaged 11 girls, and underaged girls, and those are the subjects 12 we would like to question you about. 13 And rather than getting a response that says, 14 well, let me clear that all up, the response that's 15 received was, something along the lines of, give me more 16 information and -- and, quote: I'll decide whether I 17 want to cooperate, close quote, or something along those 18 lines. 19 Q. Mr. Cassell , let me -- I'm going to read to 20 you -- 21 A. Good. 22 Q. -- from the letter itself -- 23 A. Okay. 24 Q. -- and tell me if it's consistent with your 25 recollection. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594503 266 1 MR. SIMPSON: I'm sorry. You were right, 2 yes. 3 MR. SCAROLA: Can you just show it to him? 4 MR. SIMPSON: I'll read it, and then if he 5 wants to look at it, that will be fine. 6 MR. SCAROLA: Thank you. 7 BY MR. SIMPSON: 8 Q. This is a letter from Mr. Scarola to 9 Mr. Dershowitz dated August 23rd, 2011. The second 10 sentence says -- well, I'm going to read the whole 11 thing. 12 MR. SCAROLA: Yeah, thank you. 13 BY MR. SIMPSON: 14 Q. "We do not" -- 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. 19 "We do not intend to inquire about any 20 privileged communications or attorney work 21 product. We do, however, have reason to believe 22 that you have personally observed Jeffrey Epstein 23 in the presence of underaged females, and we 24 would like the opportunity to question you under 25 oath about those observations. Thank you for ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594504 267 1 your anticipated cooperation. Signed, Jack 2 Scarola." 3 If you would like to -- 4 A. Sure. 5 Q. -- take a look at the letter to refresh 6 yourself, you're welcome to. 7 A. Great. Thanks. Okay. 8 Q. Now, first, you're aware, are you not, that 9 Professor Dershowitz answered that letter and said the 10 assertion that he had observed Mr. Epstein in the 11 presence of underage -- 12 MR. SCAROLA: Females. 13 BY MR. SIMPSON: 14 Q. -- females was not true? 15 A. Something along those lines, yeah. 16 Q. Yeah. And I will read it from that letter -- 17 A. Okay. That would be good. Yeah, that would 18 be great. 19 Q. And "I have never" -- this is a letter from 20 Mr. Dershowitz to Mr. Scarola, August 29th, 2011. 21 "Dear Mr. Scarola, I have never personally 22 observed Jeffrey Epstein in the presence of 23 underaged females. I do not believe you have any 24 reasonable basis for believing that I have. If 25 you have -- if you claim to have reason to ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594505 268 1 believe, please provide me with any such reason. 2 I am certain I can demonstrate to you that it is 3 false." 4 Is that consistent with your recollection of 5 the response? 6 A. That sounds about right, yeah. 7 Q. So Mr. Dershowitz did not ignore the letter; 8 he responded to it, correct? 9 A. I think that's right. 10 Q. And go back to the first letter. 11 A. But, now, if we are -- if we're talking 12 about -- yeah, there's that one letter and now there's a 13 response letter, right. 14 Q. My question to you is: Does the statement to 15 a person that "we have reason to believe that you have 16 personally observed another person in the presence of 17 underage females and we would like to ask you about your 18 observations," put the recipient on notice that you, 19 yourself, are accused of criminal conduct in abusing 20 minors? 21 A. Well, it puts you on notice that you're a 22 potential, obviously, witness to this and then therefore 23 you could have potential involvement. 24 Let me give you a simple illustration. It'll 25 take about 20 seconds. If somebody says -- ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594506 269 1 Q. Well, 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 -- 9 MR. SCAROLA: So go ahead and complete your 10 response. 11 MR. SIMPSON: Can we have a -- you can give 12 an explanation, but a yes or no with an 13 explanation. 14 MR. SCAROLA: You already got that. Could we 15 now have the completion of the response? 16 THE WITNESS: Here's the simple illustration 17 I think makes it pretty clear: If somebody says, 18 we have observed you in the presence of a kilo of 19 cocaine, we would like to question you about the 20 presence -- about your observations of this, that 21 doesn't directly state that you are a drug user 22 or a drug dealer, but it certainly puts you on 23 notice that you're associated with that criminal 24 activity and somebody is going to question you 25 about it. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594507 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 10 many states in this country, including the State 11 of Florida. 12 And so that if those observations were such 13 that they would give rise to a reasonable 14 inference that sex abuse was -- of children was 15 going on and you'd be obligated to report it, as 16 I think Mr. Dershowitz conceded yesterday, yes, 17 you -- I think that puts you on notice that -- 18 that those kinds of things are being alleged. 19 BY MR. SIMPSON: 20 Q. So, first, the letter itself, the letter from 21 Mr. Scarola simply says, you were -- you were personally 22 -- you personally observed Jeffrey Epstein in the 23 presence of underaged females, correct? 24 A. Correct. 25 Q. It does not say, you witnessed abuse of any ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594508 271 1 minor; we have reason to believe you observed abuse of 2 minors? 3 A. If those words do not appear there, but come 4 on, we -- we know -- we know in the context of this 5 case, when somebody is asking to take a deposition about 6 your observation of young girls, they weren't talking 7 about preparations for birthday parties. They were 8 talking about sexual abuse of children. 9 And that was what Mr. Dershowitz was going to 10 be asked about. And he did not -- he did not take that 11 opportunity to try to clear the record; instead, we are, 12 you know, here today, because among other reasons, he -- 13 he -- he wasn't deposed then. 14 Q. I want -- I want to comment. I'm just a 15 little bit non -- nonplussed, so I want to come back to 16 this again. 17 A. Well, I'm -- I have to tell you, I'm a little 18 bit nonplussed that somebody would say that letter 19 doesn't put you on notice that you're potentially 20 involved in criminal activity. I mean, come on. 21 Q. I -- my question wasn't potentially involved 22 in criminal activity. We disagree about whether it does 23 that. 24 A. Okay. I think it does. 25 Q. I suspect you -- that's how you read it? ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594509 272 1 A. I think it puts you on notice in the context 2 of a country which has required people to report the 3 sexual abuse of children, and somebody wants to talk to 4 you about your observations of a convicted sex offender 5 with underage girls, that that's going to be one of the 6 subjects that's going to be discussed, yes. 7 Q. My question was -- my initial question was: 8 Does -- do the statements in this letter put the reader 9 on notice that you, personally, are accused of abusing 10 minors yourself, not that you have in some knowledge or 11 evidence that someone else did it, but that you, 12 yourself, did it; is that a way to give fair notice? 13 A. Well, in fair notice in what context? You 14 know, is he on notice that a lawsuit is going to be 15 filed the next day? 16 Simply from that piece of -- that letter 17 alone, they are on notice, you know -- I mean, I think 18 that puts you on notice that there are serious 19 allegations afoot and it would be in your best interest 20 if you hadn't done anything, to show up, attend a 21 deposition, let all the facts come out so that everybody 22 can know them. 23 Q. Would you agree that accusing someone of 24 themselves abusing a minor is different than accusing 25 someone of having knowledge that somebody else did it? ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594510 273 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. And to accuse someone of abusing a minor is a 3 serious, serious accusation of criminal conduct, 4 personal criminal conduct, not just failing to report 5 somebody else, but you, yourself, are abusing people? 6 A. Oh, yeah. 7 MR. SCAROLA: Are you suggesting that that's 8 not criminal conduct? 9 MR. SIMPSON: I'm -- I'm -- my question 10 stands. 11 BY MR. SIMPSON: 12 Q. What is the answer to that? 13 A. It is a very serious charge, I agree. That's 14 why we are all here today. 15 Q. Okay. And -- and if you wanted to put 16 someone on fair notice that they are accused themselves 17 of being a sex offender, a criminal who has abused 18 children, wouldn't you tell them that? 19 A. That's a speculative question because that 20 letter was designed to try to collect information about 21 an international sex trafficking organization. And so 22 as to -- you know, I'm not going to speculate as to why 23 Mr. Scarola wrote it that way. But my sense, based on 24 the public record is, that he was trying to get as much 25 information as he could about what Jeffrey Epstein and ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594511 274 1 his criminal associates were doing. And he thought that 2 Mr. Dershowitz would have information and was trying to 3 collect that. 4 Now, whether the -- the -- the tentacles of 5 the organization would extend so that they wrapped 6 around Mr. Dershowitz himself, I guess was the subject 7 that -- that Mr. Scarola, I am assuming, was hoping to 8 explore. But Mr. Dershowitz prevented that opportunity. 9 Q. And Mr. Dershowitz, you knew, had been 10 Mr. Epstein's attorney, correct? 11 A. Correct. 12 Q. And you knew, just as we have seen here today 13 with multiple assertions of privilege, that he could not 14 testify about anything he learned as an attorney? 15 A. He could testify, and the letter itself says, 16 we are not going to ask you about any communications; we 17 are going to ask you about observations of sex abuse by 18 a convicted sex offender, and your personal knowledge of 19 that. That would not have erased in the -- and 20 Mr. Scarola's a very good attorney, and I'm sure all of 21 his questions that we saw the last couple of days would 22 have been very narrowly focused on observations about 23 what this criminal organization was doing. 24 Q. And so to the bottom line is that your view, 25 your sworn testimony, this letter of August 23rd, 2011, ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594512 275 1 put Mr. Dershowitz, Professor Dershowitz, on fair notice 2 that he was being accused of being a sex offender 3 himself? 4 A. We -- we have gone over this. I think it put 5 him on fair notice that there were serious questions 6 being raised about what he knew about this criminal 7 organization, what the potential criminal responsibility 8 he had for failure to report sexual abuse of a child, as 9 well as other possibilities. 10 MR. SIMPSON: I'm going to move to strike as 11 nonresponsive. 12 BY MR. SIMPSON: 13 Q. My question is a very narrow one, whether 14 this letter, in your opinion, under oath, fairly put 15 Mr. -- Professor Dershowitz on notice that he himself 16 was accused of abusing minors. 17 A. Again, that's a vague question. I've tried 18 to give the best answer I can. That was certainly a 19 potential area of questioning. I think that puts him on 20 notice that it would have been in his best interest to 21 appear to answer those questions. 22 MR. SIMPSON: I'm going to object to the 23 answer again as nonresponsive. 24 BY MR. SIMPSON: 25 Q. It's a really simple question. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594513 276 1 Does that letter put Mr. Dershowitz on fair 2 notice that he's accused of being a sex offender 3 himself? 4 MR. SCAROLA: Objection. Repetitious. To 5 the extent that you can improve upon the answer, 6 you can improve upon the answer. If you can't, 7 all you need to do is say that. 8 THE WITNESS: I -- and I'll try to 9 obviously, I want to be responsive -- 10 BY MR. SIMPSON: 11 Q. Let -- let me ask -- 12 A. -- to your question. 13 Q. I'll ask you a different question. 14 A. I don't think that's a yes or no question 15 because of -- of you're including vague terms like fair 16 notice and -- and those sorts of things. So -- but go 17 ahead and ask your questions and I'll -- I mean, go 18 ahead. 19 Q. You're a former federal judge? 20 A. Right. 21 Q. A former Supreme Court law -- law clerk? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. Professor at a law school? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. Reading as -- reading the language of this ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594514 277 1 letter, in your opinion, does the language itself put 2 the recipient on notice that the recipient is accused of 3 abusing minors himself? 4 A. It puts him on notice that that is going to 5 be a potential subject of inquiry at the -- at the -- 6 the deposition. 7 Q. So your answer then is, yes, it puts the -- 8 the -- the person on notice; that's your reading? 9 A. You're -- I think you're putting words in my 10 mouth. You're -- you're trying to ask, you know, a 11 question that on the one hand, you're suggesting is 12 narrow, and on the other hand is broad. It -- I mean, 13 this is probably the simplest way to answer that 14 question. 15 If I had gotten that letter, I would have 16 said, schedule the deposition in the next 24 hours, and 17 come on down here now, and I will be available for a 18 week. That's what I would have said if I had gotten 19 that letter. 20 MR. SIMPSON: Move to strike as 21 nonresponsive. 22 BY MR. SIMPSON: 23 Q. Is it your testimony you can't answer yes or 24 no whether that letter, on its face, puts the recipient 25 on notice that the recipient is accused himself of ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594515 278 1 having abused minors? Can you answer that: Yes or no? 2 A. No. I think a yes-or-no answer would be 3 misleading, given the context of this case. 4 Q. You referred in your earlier testimony to -- 5 strike that for a moment. 6 You referred in your earlier testimony to an 7 article that appeared today regarding 8 Professor Dershowitz's deposition testimony, correct? 9 A. I don't think so. 10 Q. Okay. Are you aware that -- well , perhaps it 11 was IIII McCawley who referred to it. 12 Do you recall there being a reference this 13 morning to an article being published about 14 Professor Dershowitz's testimony? 15 MS. McCAWLEY: Oh, I'm sorry. It was me. I 16 objected to the extent -- only to the extent it 17 revealed something public that had been stated in 18 public. 19 BY MR. SIMPSON: 20 Q. Okay. And I -- you recall that? 21 A. Yeah, I recall the objection. I think 22 there's an article that came out yesterday or a 23 communication. I -- I -- you know, I can't remember 24 the -- exactly where I -- I know that I received a 25 communication, either through publication or in some ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594516 279 1 other way from the -- from the -- you know, I became 2 aware that there was a statement that the -- what's the 3 name of the outfit? It's the Business Investor -- 4 MR. SCAROLA: Daily Business Review. 5 THE WITNESS: Daily Business Review that was 6 stating that David Boies was saying that the 7 representations made by Mr. Dershowitz were 8 false. 9 MR. SCAROLA: I did just coach the witness. 10 I apologize. 11 THE WITNESS: Yeah. And, I'm sorry, just for 12 the name of that, so... 13 BY MR. SIMPSON: 14 Q. And you -- in your earlier testimony, you 15 referred to it -- you didn't recall the name, but you 16 referred to it as a reputable -- 17 A. That's right. 18 Q. -- publication? 19 A. That's right. That's the one we are talking 20 about, right. 21 Q. Right. And in that article it states: 22 "McCawley," referring to our colleague, 23 "later issued a statement on Boies's behalf 24 saying, because the discussions that Mr. Boies 25 had with Mr. Dershowitz were expressly privileged ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594517 280 1 settlement discussions, Mr. Boies will not, at 2 least at this time, describe what was actually 3 said. However, Mr. Boies does state that 4 Mr. Dershowitz's description of what was said is 5 not true." 6 A. That's the one. 7 Q. You read that? 8 A. Yeah. I -- I learned of it -- yeah, I don't 9 remember whether I read or how I got it, but yeah, 10 that's the one. 11 Q. In light of that statement by Mr. Boies, 12 would you agree that any privilege has been waived? 13 A. I would not. 14 Q. So -- 15 A. That's -- that's a newspaper article. 16 Q. It's a pub -- it's a quote. Let me clarify. 17 That's a statement -- quoting a statement issued by 18 Ms. McCawley and quoting Mr. Boies as saying, 19 Mr. Dershowitz's description of what was said is not 20 true, so that's a public statement by Mr. Boies saying 21 that Mr. Dershowitz's testimony is not true; is that a 22 waiver in your view? 23 A. No. And that would require -- I'm with -- 24 I'm just putting you on notice, talking about notice, if 25 you want me to, I could give you the law professor ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594518 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 Q. 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 9 record is clear: I absolutely do not believe that's a 10 waiver and I could give you an extended answer, but I 11 know time is drawing short -- 12 Q. All right. 13 A. -- so... 14 Q. But you -- what I want to clarify is that, 15 notwithstanding that statement, you will continue to 16 answer all my questions about the substance of 17 discussions with Mr. Boies; you're continuing not to 18 answer, you're continuing -- 19 MS. McCAWLEY: Yes -- 20 MR. SCAROLA: You just said you -- 21 MS. McCAWLEY: -- I believe -- 22 MR. SCAROLA: -- continue to answer. 23 MS. McCAWLEY: I'm sorry. 24 MR. SIMPSON: I'm sorry. 25 MS. McCAWLEY: Continue not to answer. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594519 282 1 MR. SCAROLA: Why don't you start over again? 2 MR. SIMPSON: No. I just want -- 3 MS. McCAWLEY: We disagree with 4 your characterization of that as a waiver. It 5 was a statement that was issued in order to stop 6 the waivers that Mr. Dershowitz was trying to 7 engage in, and we -- we don't agree that's a 8 waiver and we will not allow any testimony 9 regarding those communications. 10 MR. SIMPSON: Okay. I disagree with the 11 position and the characterization, but I just 12 wanted to clarify on the record, I didn't have to 13 ask those questions again. 14 MR. SCAROLA: Sure. 15 MS. McCAWLEY: I understand. 16 MR. SIMPSON: And, obviously, our position is 17 that if it hadn't already been -- if it hadn't 18 already been waived -- either it wasn't 19 privileged or hadn't been waived, it's now 20 waived. 21 THE WITNESS: And my -- just -- 22 MR. SIMPSON: I don't have a question. 23 THE WITNESS: I know, but I -- but I think 24 now in light of, since the record has these 25 characters, I just want to put one sentence into ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594520 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 10 comments to -- to reflect back on my earlier 11 answer. 12 BY MR. SIMPSON: 13 Q. I want to go back, Mr. Cassell, get back to 14 yesterday's exhibits. I'm going to hand you what was 15 marked yesterday as Cassell Exhibit Number 2, which is 16 the joinder motion, and when you have that in front of 17 you -- 18 A. Got it. 19 Q. Do you have that in front of you? 20 A. I do. 21 Q. All right. Would you -- find my copy of 22 it -- if you would turn to page -- bottom of page 3, 23 part of -- top of page 4; do you have that? 24 A. Got it. 25 Q. All right. I'm going to read it. Tell me if ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594521 284 1 I've read it correctly. 2 A. Okay. 3 Q. "Epstein also sexually trafficked the 4 then-minor Jane Doe" -- and that's 5 correct? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. -- "making her available for sex to 8 politically-connected and financially-powerful people. 9 Epstein's purposes in lending Jane Doe, along with other 10 young girls, to such powerful people were to ingratiate 11 himself with them for business, personal , political, and 12 financial gain, as well as to obtain potential blackmail 13 information." 14 Did I read that correctly? 15 A. You did. 16 Q. What did you mean by "obtain potential 17 blackmail information"? 18 A. Okay. Let me just double-check. 19 Once the criminal organization had put the 20 bait out, so to speak, to various people, and they took 21 the bait that -- you know, I'm -- I'm speaking 22 colloquially here. These are -- these are young girls 23 who are being sexually abused. Once the criminal 24 organization had gotten people to sexually abuse 25 these -- these young girls, at that point, they had ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594522 285 1 information that they could use to blackmail those 2 people and -- and then get favors in exchange. 3 And that's Epstein at the head of the 4 organization would be the one who would benefit most 5 directly from the black -- the blackmail information. 6 Q. And by "blackmail information," do you mean 7 that Mr. Epstein then had information that he could 8 threaten to disclose if the other person didn't do what 9 Epstein asked them to do? 10 A. Precisely. 11 Q. As of December 30th, 2014, if IIII 12 had access to publicity, she had exactly the same 13 ability to blackmail people; isn't that true? 14 A. Absolutely not. A billionaire has far more 15 resources than a victim of child sex abuse, particularly 16 one that has been forced into hiding in Australia to 17 escape the criminal organization. 18 So for you to suggest that 19 had the same ability to blackmail somebody as Jeffrey 20 Epstein is, I think, preposterous. 21 Q. As of -- IIII IIII had the same 22 ability as Jeffrey Epstein to reveal publicly the names 23 of the people who she says sexually abused her, as did 24 Mr. Epstein; isn't that true? 25 A. You're talking about physical ability to ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594523 286 1 speak words. They both have the same physical ability 2 to speak the English language, yes. 3 Q. And, in fact, before, at least three years 4 before December 30th, 2014, she had the ability to be 5 quoted in an article, more than one article, in the 6 Daily Mail in London about her experiences, correct? 7 A. That's correct. 8 Q. And am I correct that as of December 30th, 9 2014, you didn't know whether she was paid for that 10 interview or not? 11 A. I wasn't sure. That's right. 12 Q. And after December 30th, 2014, the references 13 to Prince Andrew and Professor Dershowitz generated 14 international publicity; isn't that true? 15 A. Okay. Which -- yes, I mean, in a general 16 sense, I could ask which allegations, but these 17 allegations did generate publicity, certainly. 18 Q. Yes. The allegations in your joinder motion 19 that Prince Andrew and Professor Dershowitz had abused 20 , then known as Jane Doe Number 3, 21 generated a firestorm of publicity; did it not? 22 A. It generated a lot of publicity, yes. 23 Q. And within days of that, you were -- you were 24 participating in attempting to arrange an interview with 25 ABC News; isn't that true? ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594524 287 1 A. That -- within days of -- the chronology is 2 important here: The allegations were filed in this 3 pleading on December 30th. Several days after that, 4 Mr. Dershowitz then took to the airwaves to denounce, 5 not only Brad and me, but -- but particularly of concern 6 to me was , this victim of sex 7 trafficking. 8 And, at that point, as one of -- as one of 9 her attorneys, I was looking for a way to respond to 10 that media assault on her by Mr. Dershowitz. 11 MR. SIMPSON: Move to strike as 12 nonresponsive. 13 BY MR. SIMPSON: 14 Q. Did -- within 24 hours of this pleading being 15 filed, there was publicity about the allegations against 16 Prince Andrew and Mr. Dershowitz -- Professor 17 Dershowitz; isn't that correct? 18 A. I don't know the exact time frame, but 19 that -- you know, roughly that time frame sounds about 20 right. 21 Q. If Mr. -- if Professor Dershowitz had never 22 said anything, wouldn't you expect that these 23 allegations as to Prince Andrew, in particular, and 24 Professor Dershowitz would get substantial publicity? 25 A. There was -- there was -- ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594525 288 1 MR. SCAROLA: Excuse me. To the extent the 2 question calls for speculation, I object. 3 MR. SIMPSON: No. I'm asking for his state 4 of mind when he filed this document. 5 THE WITNESS: There's no doubt that -- 6 MR. SCAROLA: So the question is: At the 7 time of the filing -- 8 MR. SIMPSON: Please -- please don't coach 9 the witness. 10 MR. SCAROLA: No, I'm not coaching him. I 11 just want to understand the question. You're 12 asking what his state of mind was at the time of 13 filing? 14 MR. SIMPSON: Did he -- did he anticipate -- 15 MR. SCAROLA: Because the other question was: 16 What do you -- what's your position today. 17 MR. SIMPSON: Mr. Scarola, really. 18 MR. SCAROLA: That's -- that's a different 19 question. So I just want to know which one 20 you're asking. 21 Do you want to know his state of mind then, 22 or his state of mind today? 23 MR. SIMPSON: I will take that as an 24 objection to the form of the question. 25 ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594526 289 1 BY MR. SIMPSON: 2 Q. As of -- 3 MR. SCAROLA: It's a request for a 4 clarification of an ambiguous question. 5 MR. SIMPSON: It's coaching the witness. 6 BY MR. SIMPSON: 7 Q. As of -- 8 A. Yeah, I don't need any coaching. I mean... 9 Q. Let me ask the question. 10 As of December 30th -- that's true -- as 11 of -- 12 A. Right -- 13 Q. -- we agree that's coaching. 14 A. -- but that wasn't coaching. That wasn't 15 coaching, so the suggestion that it's coaching is -- is 16 not fair. 17 Q. Okay. We disagree. 18 As of December 30th, 2014, did you anticipate 19 that naming Prince Andrew in a public filing as having 20 abused would generate substantial 21 publicity? 22 A. "Substantial" is a debatable word, but 23 certainly, it's going to generate publicity, yes. 24 Publicity about the allegations. 25 Q. Yes. And -- and the allegations are that ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594527 290 1 Prince Andrew had sexually abused 2 correct? 3 A. That was one of the allegations in here, 4 sure. 5 Q. And the allegations that Professor Dershowitz 6 had sexually abused , correct? 7 A. That's right. It was in a -- what we were -- 8 what we were starting to document and allege here was 9 that terrible things that Epstein's criminal 10 organization had done. 11 Q. Let me refer you to page 6 -- 12 A. Okay. 13 Q. -- of your filing. It's the first full 14 paragraph. 15 A. Yep. 16 Q. I'm going to read it. "Epstein also 17 trafficked Jane Doe Number 3 for sexual purposes to many 18 other powerful men." 19 A. Okay. 20 Q. "Including numerous prominent American 21 politicians, powerful business executives, foreign 22 presidents, a well-known prime minister, and other world 23 leaders. Jane -- Epstein required Jane Doe Number 3 to 24 describe the events that she had with these men so that 25 he could potentially blackmail them." ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594528 291 1 Did I read that correctly? 2 A. You did. 3 Q. With respect to blackmail, the ability to 4 blackmail, is that the same potential we talked about a 5 moment ago in your testimony? 6 A. Sure. 7 Q. And you're referring there to -- 8 A. Roughly, yeah. I mean, if there's something 9 that you want clarified, go ahead and clarify it. 10 Q. I just -- I just wanted to make sure I 11 understand correctly that when you refer that -- to 12 Epstein requiring to describe these 13 events so that he could potentially blackmail them, what 14 you had in mind was, Epstein wanted to know what 15 did with these men so that he had the 16 ability to threaten to disclose it if they didn't do 17 what he wanted them to do? 18 A. That was -- that was part of it, yes. 19 Q. And isn't it true you could have 20 accomplished -- in terms of furthering 21 legal interests, you could have accomplished 22 exactly the same thing by saying Epstein also 23 trafficked -- trafficked Jane Doe Number 3 for sexual 24 purposes to other well-known men, period? 25 A. No, I don't think so. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594529 292 1 Q. Okay. You felt that it furthered her legal 2 interests to specify American politicians, powerful 3 business executives, foreign presidents, a well-known 4 prime minister and other world leaders; that was your 5 you -- you believe that furthered her legal interest? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. Did you also anticipate that that would 8 titillate the Press, so to speak, that there would be a 9 lot of speculation on who these people are? 10 A. That wasn't the -- that wasn't the focus 11 of the -- those comments, no. 12 Q. You said it wasn't the focus. Did you 13 realize it would happen? 14 A. Sure. I mean, this was a case that had 15 been already -- this litigation had been going on at 16 that point for seven years and lots of people were 17 following it. This is -- this case is one of the most 18 egregious examples of a violation of Crime Victims' 19 Rights in the history of this country. 20 And so against that context, yes, there were 21 going to be people interested in every word that was 22 going into this pleading. Whether we had gone more 23 broadly or more narrowly than what we did, people were 24 going to be interested in this. 25 Q. And as of December 30th of 2014, IIII ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594530 293 1 had the same ability to disclose who these individuals 2 were publicly, 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, 5 again, I think it's preposterous to say that a victim of 6 sex trafficking has the same power as the sex trafficker 7 to disclose information. 8 For example, could be 9 attacked, and I think as we were talking about 10 yesterday, we have seen evidence of the kind of attack 11 that powerful people can mount against the victims of 12 sex trafficking. So to say that the young women in sex 13 trafficking schemes have the same power as their 14 traffickers to do this -- I'm sorry. I'm going to have 15 to take a break. 16 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are going off the video 17 record, 11:32 a.m. 18 (Thereupon, a recess was taken.) 19 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are back on the video 20 record, 11:36 a.m. 21 BY MR. SIMPSON: 22 Q. Had you finished your answer, Mr. Cassell? 23 A. I think I had. 24 Q. Okay. 25 A. Thank you. Thank you for letting me take a ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594531 294 1 break. I appreciate that. 2 Q. Okay. 3 MR. SCAROLA: Could you just read back the 4 last question for me? I just want to orient 5 myself as to where we are. Thank you. 6 (Thereupon, a portion of the record was read 7 by the reporter.) 8 MR. SCAROLA: Yeah, I didn't I think the 9 answer was -- 10 THE WITNESS: I guess I was mid-sentence, so 11 think I will just stick with the same word, 12 preposterous. And one -- one thing that occurred 13 to me during the break, in the context of this 14 case, is that there had been allegations that 15 Epstein was part of the -- the sex trafficking 16 organization, had video cameras mounted 17 throughout many of his -- his mansions. And so, 18 whereas a young woman could say, or a young girl 19 could say, look, I was a victim of sex abuse, 20 people would attack her; people wouldn't believe 21 her, that unless she had, you know, corroborating 22 evidence, people would say, well, look, it didn't 23 happen. 24 And so Epstein had managed to collect 25 apparently a lot of videotapes and other kinds of ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594532 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 Q. Mr. Cassell , didn't you testify yesterday 7 that any videotapes from Mr. Epstein's house had been 8 destroyed? 9 A. I -- when I used the word "destroyed," I 10 probably should have been more precise. They had been 11 concealed from law enforcement, is what I meant. That 12 when Palm Beach Police Department went up to the Epstein 13 mansion, they found surveillance cameras and other 14 cameras. I can't remember exactly where the cameras 15 were, but they found surveillance cameras, and when they 16 looked for the tapes associated with those cameras, I 17 used the word "destroyed"; and as I say, I probably 18 should have said they were missing. And so they were 19 never able to locate those -- those missing videotapes. 20 Q. So as of December 30th of 2014, to your 21 knowledge, there were no videotapes available? 22 A. There were no videotapes available to law 23 enforcement or to Brad and his pro bono crime victim 24 attorneys to help document our case. We were trying to 25 get those and we are continuing to try to get those, ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594533 296 1 but, obviously, Epstein and his criminal associates have 2 had the ability to -- to destroy the evidence that's 3 been -- that we have been trying to gather. 4 Q. And in -- in your answer a couple of 5 questions -- 6 A. I -- I'm sorry. I shouldn't say "destroyed." 7 They have been able to conceal would probably be a more 8 accurate term, the -- the evidence that we are trying to 9 gather. 10 Q. In my answer -- in my answer -- 11 A. Yeah. 12 Q. -- in the question and answer, your answer to 13 my question a couple of questions ago, you talked about 14 whether Mr. Epstein and would have the 15 same or equal ability to disclose -- 16 A. Right. 17 Q. -- what these prominent politicians, 18 et cetera, had done, correct? 19 A. Correct. 20 Q. Without attempting to make any comparison, 21 you would agree, would you not, that as of December 22 30th, 2014, IIII had the ability to name the 23 names of the people who are referenced in this document? 24 A. Physical ability, yes. 25 Q. And -- well , let me ask this: You say a ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594534 297 1 well-known prime minister. Is that Prime Minister 2 Barak? 3 MS. McCAWLEY: I'm gonna instruct you not to 4 reveal any attorney/client communications you had 5 with on the specifics of her 6 counsel to you about these individuals. 7 BY MR. SIMPSON: 8 Q. Is one of the other -- one of the powerful 9 business executives, Les Wexner? 10 MS. McCAWLEY: Again, same instruction. 11 BY MR. SIMPSON: 12 Q. Okay. Now, you mentioned yesterday -- well , 13 a moment ago, you testified that these -- in your view, 14 these allegations about other powerful men furthered 15 ' legal position in the case, correct? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. And it's also your position, I assume, that 18 the allegations regarding Professor Dershowitz and 19 Prince Andrew furthered IIII ' legal position; is 20 that right? 21 A. Absolutely. 22 Q. Does the fact that Judge Marra struck those 23 allegations as impertinent, scandalous, and completely 24 irrelevant to the case, cause you to reassess? 25 MR. SCAROLA: Excuse me. Is that -- is that ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594535 298 1 intended to be a direct quote? 2 MR. SIMPSON: Back up. 3 BY MR. SIMPSON: 4 Q. What is your understanding of Judge Marra's 5 ruling with respect to these allegations about Professor 6 Dershowitz and Prince Andrew? 7 A. That they were premature. 8 Q. That's your understanding of his order? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. Okay. 11 A. And I -- maybe I should -- I see some 12 skepticism there, so let me explain why I think those 13 allegations -- 14 Q. Yeah. Well , we can pull -- 15 A. -- are appropriate. 16 Q. -- we will pull out the order itself -- 17 A. Sure. 18 Q. -- at the appropriate time, but first, your 19 understanding is that the judge didn't find that those 20 allegations, at the time they were made, were so 21 irrelevant to the case, that they should be stricken 22 from the public record? 23 A. In that pleading at that time, remember, we 24 had in our -- our brief -- let me explain the -- the 25 nine reasons why we thought that those allegations were ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594536 299 1 relevant to the case, since I think your question calls 2 for that. 3 Q. Are those the nine reasons you gave 4 yesterday? 5 A. No, I didn't have a chance to. 6 Q. Are they the nine reasons that are set forth 7 in your -- in your brief? 8 A. They are. Those are the nine reasons that 9 are set forth in the brief. 10 Q. Okay. And -- and Judge Marra had that brief 11 in front of him when he held that, these allegations 12 were so not relevant to the issues before the court, 13 that they would be stricken and not part of the public 14 record? 15 A. At that time, in that particular pleading -- 16 I think you're mischaracterizing Judge Marra's ruling in 17 its entirety. He specifically said that the allegations 18 could be reasserted, if they were relevant to issues 19 that are -- that were coming up. And so, in following 20 that ruling, we went to the U.S. Attorney's Office, 21 propounded discovery requests and said, look, we believe 22 you're sitting on information that Dershowitz was, you 23 know, connected with the -- with the criminal 24 trafficking here; we would like you to produce those 25 documents. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594537 300 1 And rather than say, hey, we don't have any 2 such documents, the U.S. Attorney's Office gave us the 3 response indicating, to our view, that there were such 4 documents, and as you know, since you're one of 5 Mr. Dershowitz's attorneys, we have drafted a pleading 6 now to try and collect that information, that law 7 enforce -- federal law enforcement agencies have 8 collected, and -- and to figure out the appropriate way 9 to litigate that so that we can get that information and 10 move forward with the case. 11 That's just one example of -- of how the 12 allegations, if they were premature at that point, are 13 no longer going to be premature as the case moves along. 14 Q. Is it or is it not your understanding that 15 Judge Marra ruled that the allegations in this pleading 16 in front of you were so irrelevant to the pleading in 17 which they were stated, that they should be stricken 18 from the public record? 19 A. In that particular pleading at that 20 particular time, that's right. 21 Q. Does that cause you to reassess, in any way, 22 having filed this document? 23 A. Well, I think certainly as a tactical matter, 24 we should have reserved the -- the allegations for -- 25 for another motion. I -- I think that's -- you know, ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594538 301 1 certainly, with the -- you're -- now, we are now sort of 2 speculating, would we have done something different if 3 we knew that? And the answer to that is, sure, we would 4 have tried to do something that Judge Marra thought was 5 the appropriate way to handle it, so... 6 Q. And Judge Marra also reminded counsel of 7 their Rule 11 obligations; didn't he? 8 A. That's right. Yeah. 9 Q. And did it cause you to question, not 10 tactics, but whether you were acting properly in filing 11 this? 12 MR. SCAROLA: Excuse me. I -- 13 MR. SIMPSON: I'm just asking if it caused 14 him to reassess. 15 MR. SCAROLA: I understand what you're 16 asking, and you're asking him about his mental 17 processes in connection with pending litigation. 18 That's work product. I instruct you not to 19 answer that question. 20 BY MR. SIMPSON: 21 Q. All right. You testified yesterday that one 22 reason that you found the filing of the complaint on 23 behalf of Jane Doe 102, who is , by 24 the -- Bob Josefsberg and -- and why that was 25 significant was that Bob Josefsberg had been selected by ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594539 302 1 the United States Attorney for the Southern District of 2 Florida to represent victims, correct? 3 A. Yes. Through the -- through the NPA, yeah, 4 there was an apparatus that led to his selection. 5 Q. And does that answer reflect holding the U.S. 6 Attorney for the Southern District of Florida in that 7 office in high regard? 8 A. Sure. 9 Q. Do you contend that at the time the United 10 States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida 11 negotiated the NPA, they knew that Professor Dershowitz, 12 himself, had been involved in abuse of minors? 13 A. I don't know exactly what information they 14 had. I do know that we have been propounding discovery 15 requests on all of these subjects, including 16 Professor Dershowitz's involvement, when the U.S. 17 Attorney knew. They are asserting privilege over that. 18 I would wish they would waive the privilege or at least 19 provide the information to pro bono crime victims' 20 attorneys that they have, so we can get to the bottom of 21 this. 22 But there have been, you know, a nonstop 23 series of assertions of privilege and other barriers 24 interposed against us in this case, and I think 25 inappropriately so, and -- and we have been arguing that ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594540 303 1 now for a number of years. 2 Q. Would you agree with me that if the United 3 States Attorney's Office had been aware that Professor 4 Dershowitz had engaged in sexual misconduct with minors, 5 or himself had observed Mr. Epstein do so, that it would 6 have been improper and unethical for them to let Mr. -- 7 Professor Dershowitz negotiate the terms of the NPA with 8 them? 9 A. If they had direct personal knowledge of 10 that, sure. I mean, the -- the -- but the realities are 11 a little bit more complicated in that Professor 12 Dershowitz, over the last couple of days as 13 frequently -- has frequently used the word "continuum," 14 and so if they were certain of that, it absolutely would 15 have -- would have been unethical. 16 The question is: Well, what if they had a 17 suspicion or what if -- you know, a reasonable suspicion 18 or a possible suspicion. Those are the kinds of 19 dimensions that you've got to, you know, take into 20 account in the real world about, you know, what they -- 21 what they would have done. 22 I mean, it seems pretty clear, for example, 23 that at some point, you know, later on, they got a black 24 book in which Professor Dershowitz's name had been 25 circled. Now, what they did with that information, I -- ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594541 304 1 I don't know. 2 Q. And what they did with the fact that Courtney 3 Love and Donald Trump were circled, you don't know also, 4 correct? 5 A. That's right. Fair point. 6 Q. But somehow it's suspicious as to 7 Mr. Dershowitz, but not as to anyone else? 8 MR. SCAROLA: Objection. Argumentative. 9 THE WITNESS: And I'm -- I'm glad to argue on 10 that point, let me, because they -- 11 MR. SIMPSON: I'll withdraw the question. 12 THE WITNESS: All right. Because I would 13 have a -- 14 MR. SIMPSON: Let -- 15 THE WITNESS: -- a substantial argument on 16 that. 17 MR. SIMPSON: I -- I will withdraw the 18 question. 19 BY MR. SIMPSON: 20 Q. With respect, again, to the -- 21 MR. SCAROLA: And I'll withdraw the 22 objection. 23 MR. SIMPSON: Thank you. 24 BY MR. SIMPSON: 25 Q. At the time that you filed this joinder ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594542 305 1 motion, Exhibit 2, you knew that the United States 2 Attorney's Office had denied having any contact -- any 3 documents reflecting any contact with Prince Andrew; 4 isn't that true? 5 A. They had -- there were -- there were various 6 discovery requests that had been propounded, and I think 7 with regard to one, they had denied, and my recollection 8 is with regard to another, where there had been an 9 assertion of privilege. 10 Q. Is it not true, that before December 30th, 11 2014, in response to a request asking the government: 12 Are there any documents reflecting contact with -- by 13 Prince Andrew regarding the NPA, the government 14 represented, there were none? 15 A. That -- with regard to the -- you're talking 16 about RFPs, request for production of documents, I 17 believe that's -- I believe that's correct. 18 Q. And on December 30th, 2014, knowing that, you 19 named Prince Andrew in this motion, correct? 20 A. Correct. 21 Q. And is it your testimony that you believe 22 that Prince Andrew somehow attempted to influence the 23 negotiations of an NPA in the United States as to 24 Mr. Epstein? 25 A. I don't have direct evidence of that, but I ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594543 306 1 certainly believe I have a good-faith basis, along with 2 my co-counsel, to explore that subject, and try to see 3 how someone who is fifth in line to the British Throne 4 might have been able to use the contacts and power that 5 he has to influence a -- a -- a disposition in this -- 6 in the Crime Victims' Rights Act case that it would have 7 been favorable to one of his friends and potentially 8 favorable to himself. 9 Q. And -- and you have that view, 10 notwithstanding that the government had represented they 11 have no record of that? 12 A. They didn't -- no, no, no, no. Let's not -- 13 not -- let's not slip and try to get me to admit 14 something that is not what the record reflects. The 15 government said they did not have documents. They did 16 not say that they didn't have any information along 17 those lines. 18 To the contrary: They asserted a whole 19 series of privileges every time we tried to get 20 information along these lines. So the fact that they 21 didn't have a letter, signed Prince Andrew, saying, 22 please do the best you can for this convicted sex 23 offender is one thing. That's the request for 24 production of documents. 25 But they never said that they -- they -- that ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594544 307 1 something along these lines had never happened and, to 2 the contrary, we were faced with assertions of privilege 3 over roughly, if I remember correctly, about 10,000 4 pages of documents where a whole host of privileges were 5 being asserted. 6 Q. Do you think it's credible that the United 7 States Attorney's Office would be discussing an NPA with 8 a member of the British Royal Family? 9 A. Not directly, but there certainly are 10 possibilities of surrogates. I -- my -- somebody who is 11 that powerful certainly wouldn't go out at it directly. 12 What they would probably do is try to find the best 13 lawyers they could around the United States and -- and, 14 you know, and some of the, you know, big-named lawyers 15 and try to bring them in there to -- to work a deal. 16 That's, I think, how, you know, we're -- you're 17 asking -- your question is asking for speculation and 18 I'm saying that -- that based on, how would you 19 influence a deal in an American criminal justice system? 20 You go try to get the best defense lawyers you could and 21 see -- you know -- you know, figure out which political 22 party was in power; and try to get people who are 23 well-connected to that political party, things like 24 that. 25 So that's the way that I think somebody might ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594545 308 1 have gone about trying to -- to put pressure for a -- a 2 favorable plea deal . 3 Q. And that's what you just referred to as 4 speculation, correct? 5 A. Well, your question said: Well , how would 6 they go do this? And I -- I -- I gave you my answer as 7 to how I think somebody could well do that, yes. 8 Q. And -- and your pleading doesn't allege how 9 someone would do it; it alleges that they did it; isn't 10 that correct? 11 A. Did what? 12 Q. Let me -- let me rephrase it. 13 A. No. I -- I -- the -- 14 Q. I -- I withdraw the question. 15 A. Yeah. 16 Q. We only have about ten minutes here. There 17 are a couple of things that I -- 18 A. Sure. Absolutely. 19 Q. -- wanted to get before we -- we will come 20 back to these when we resume. We have a lot more 21 questions. 22 A. Great. I look forward to it. 23 MR. SIMPSON: I'm going to ask the reporter 24 to mark as Exhibit -- what are we up to -- 6, 25 Exhibit 6, a document bearing Bates stamp numbers ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594546 309 1 BE-510 through -514. 2 (Cassell's I.D. Exhibit No. 6 - series of 3 e-mails, Bates numbered BE-510 - -514 was marked for 4 identification.) 5 BY MR. SIMPSON: 6 Q. I will give that to the witness. And to 7 identify the document further, it's a series of e-mails, 8 the most -- the latest one in date being at the top, 9 which appears to be an e-mail from Paul Cassell to 10 Jacqueline S. Jesko on Sunday, January 4th, 2015 at 11 12:48 p.m. 12 A. Right. 13 Q. My first question is whether you, in fact, 14 sent this e-mail that -- that this -- had this exchange 15 of e-mails with Miss Jesco? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. And Miss Jesko -- who is Miss Jesko? 18 A. She works for -- which -- which -- oh, 19 Nightline. She works for Nightline, yes. 20 Q. So she's with ABC News? 21 A. I believe that's right, yes. 22 Q. And -- 23 A. I mean, I -- I can't remember. The network 24 wasn't significant to me, but she's with the Nightline 25 program. I knew that was a major program. I don't ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594547 310 1 know -- I can't recall sitting here today whether 2 Nightline, is that an ABC program or NBC or -- or some 3 other network. 4 Q. If you look at the exhibit, the e-mail in the 5 second -- the bottom half of the first page, it has her 6 e-mail address. Does that -- @abc.com? 7 A. Yeah, yeah, yeah. That's good. Thank you. 8 Q. So ABC. So in this e-mail on January 4th of 9 2015, you told Miss Jesko of CBS News [sic] that -- 10 MS. McCAWLEY: ABC. I'm sorry. You said 11 CBS. 12 MR. SIMPSON: I'm sorry. 13 THE WITNESS: There you go. 14 MS. McCAWLEY: Now, we are really confused. 15 MR. SIMPSON: I'm sorry. Let me start again, 16 and thank you. 17 MS. McCAWLEY: Sure. 18 BY MR. SIMPSON: 19 Q. In this e-mail on January 4th, 2015, you told 20 Miss Jesko of ABC News, quote: I represent, along with 21 Brad Edwards in Florida, the young woman who was 22 sexually abused by Prince Andrew and Alan Dershowitz, 23 period, close quote. Have I quoted that correctly? 24 A. You have. 25 Q. So is it fair to say that in this e-mail, you ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594548 311 1 have told ABC News that Mr. -- Professor Dershowitz, in 2 fact, had abused 3 A. No. I think it says that I'm the lawyer who 4 is representing someone who has -- has made those 5 allegations. 6 Q. That's how you read this e-mail? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. In the e-mail you identified - as: 9 "The young woman who was sexually abused by 10 Prince Andrew and Alan Dershowitz." 11 That doesn't read to you as a statement that 12 she was abused? 13 A. In context, I think it was understood that I 14 was the attorney representing her with that claim. 15 MR. DERSHOWITZ: Move on. 16 BY MR. SIMPSON: 17 Q. Who -- 18 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry. What was that? 19 Who -- who was that? 20 MR. SIMPSON: Who is speaking? 21 THE WITNESS: I heard somebody say "move on" 22 or something. Could somebody identify 23 themselves, please? Did I -- 24 MR. SIMPSON: In any event, I -- I will move 25 on. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594549 312 1 THE WITNESS: Well -- well , who -- I'm sorry. 2 Who was that? The speaker? I want to know who 3 is on the line here. Could somebody identify 4 themselves, please? 5 If somebody is eavesdropping in my 6 deposition, I would like to know who it is. 7 MR. SIMPSON: No one has the call -in number 8 other than counsel and parties. 9 THE WITNESS: So -- 10 MR. SIMPSON: To my knowledge 11 MR. SCAROLA: Yeah, but that -- 12 THE WITNESS: But who is that person? 13 MR. SCAROLA: -- that doesn't preclude 14 someone from sharing that call -in number. And 15 it is appropriate that anybody on the line 16 identify themselves. 17 And if the people on the line refuse to 18 identify themselves, then it's our intention to 19 cut off the line, and the people who are 20 authorized to be on the line can call back in. 21 MR. SCOTT: I agree with that. 22 MR. SIMPSON: Could -- could the people on 23 the line identify themselves? 24 MR. SCAROLA: Okay -- 25 MR. DERSHOWITZ: Alan Dershowitz. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594550 313 1 MR. SCAROLA: -- cut it off. 2 MS. McCAWLEY: He just -- he just -- 3 THE WITNESS: So he -- 4 MR. SIMPSON: Alan Dershowitz. Anyone else? 5 MR. SCAROLA: So the only person on the line 6 is Alan Dershowitz, and it was Mr. Dershowitz who 7 made the comment "move on"; is that correct? 8 MR. SIMPSON: Well , he's the only one on the 9 line. I know -- I've only got three minutes left 10 here. 11 MR. SCAROLA: Well , I'll give you three more 12 minutes. I want to know: Was it Mr. Dershowitz 13 who made that comment "move on" because if it 14 wasn't, there's somebody else on the line -- 15 MR. WEINBERG: I -- I -- 16 MR. SCAROLA: -- that refuses to identify 17 themselves. 18 MR. WEINBERG: Marty Weinberg for Epstein. 19 I've been on the line on occasion. I have a mute 20 button and have said nothing and just kept on 21 going with no statements on my end. 22 MR. DERSHOWITZ: It was me who said it. I 23 I -- I thought my mute button was on. 24 THE COURT REPORTER: I can't hear. I can't 25 hear. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594551 314 1 MR. SIMPSON: Okay. I -- 2 THE COURT REPORTER: I can't hear. 3 MR. SIMPSON: I heard it and I'll -- I'll 4 repeat it. 5 MR. SCAROLA: "It was me who said it." 6 MR. SIMPSON: "And I thought my mute 7 button" -- 8 MR. SCAROLA: "I thought my" 9 MR. SIMPSON: "was on." 10 MR. SCAROLA: "mute button was on." 11 And that was Mr. Dershowitz making that 12 comment? 13 MR. SIMPSON: Yes, it was. 14 MR. SCAROLA: Okay. Thank you. 15 MR. DERSHOWITZ: I was trying to instruct my 16 attorney. 17 MR. SCAROLA: Then we are ready to move on. 18 BY MR. SIMPSON: 19 Q. Have you told any -- all right. 20 Putting aside counsel who are working with 21 you, and putting aside those who you identified as being 22 within the common-interest privilege -- 23 A. Right. 24 Q. -- so not those people -- 25 A. Right. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594552 315 1 Q. -- have you told anyone that Professor 2 Dershowitz abused or any other minor? 3 A. No. I've -- what I have tried to say is that 4 I'm representing a young woman who has made those 5 allegations. As an attorney, I'm proud to represent 6 her, proud to present her case in court, proud to 7 present arguments to whoever will listen that she's been 8 sexually abused by various people. 9 Q. Okay. And you have spoken with 10 representatives of the News Media on the record and off 11 the record about this case; isn't that -- is that not 12 correct? 13 A. Well, on the record, yes; with regard to off 14 the record, there have been some communications that I 15 think now have been turned over to the -- to the 16 defense. So I don't -- I'm not sure if there still 17 remain any off the record -- I suppose probably there 18 are a few, but I would -- I think most of the -- what 19 were originally off-the-record communications have now 20 been provided to -- to the defense time. 21 Q. Mr. Cassell , is it not true -- true, that you 22 have spoken with reporters on what you referred to as 23 quote, background, close quote? 24 A. Yeah. I mean that's different than -- your 25 earlier question was off the record and on the record. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594553 316 1 There is an intermediate category of 2 background information as well , and I have spoken to 3 some reporters in that capacity, yes. 4 Q. And -- and -- and background means that it's 5 not for attribution, correct? 6 A. Right. The background means the reporter can 7 use the information, but shouldn't attribute it to a 8 particular person. 9 Q. And, in fact, you have -- 10 A. Or let me -- let me just clarify. Some 11 time -- well, background, I think, you know, we are now 12 talking about sort of -- when I use the term 13 "background," it would generally mean that this is 14 something maybe that you want to investigate and see if 15 you can confirm in other ways, but it shouldn't be 16 sourced to -- that I shouldn't be quoted directly 17 because they are going to have to find other -- other 18 sources that confirm that same information. 19 Q. Okay. And so my question is that it is true 20 that you have spoken with a number of reporters on 21 background about allegations in this 22 case, correct? 23 A. Well, a number -- a few, I would say, is 24 probably a more accurate characterization. 25 Q. And in any of those background conversations, ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594554 317 1 did you ever identify IIII as someone who had 2 been sexually abused by Mr. -- Professor Dershowitz? 3 A. I tried to identify myself as the attorney 4 representing someone who said that she had been sexually 5 abused by Dershowitz. I think you've received -- you 6 know, we can go through -- you know, we have produced, I 7 think, 2,500 pages of discovery. Many of those pages 8 are media communications. And, you know, we can go 9 through, and I think you know that there are a number of 10 examples, many examples, where I have said, I represent 11 a woman who has alleged that... Some verbal formulation 12 along those lines. 13 I mean, attorneys represent victims all the 14 time and -- and I don't think people generally 15 understand when an attorney makes a statement, that the 16 attorney is adopting and vouching for that statement. 17 They are -- they are serving in a representative 18 capacity. 19 Q. Have you finished your answer? 20 A. I have. 21 Q. Okay. Do you -- are you a party to any fee 22 agreement of any kind that would relate to a possible 23 recovery from Les Wexner? 24 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection to the extent that 25 it reveals any confidential communications with ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594555 318 1 your client, my client, or any joint defense 2 communications. You can't reveal that. 3 THE WITNESS: All right. So I'm going to 4 follow that instruction and not answer. 5 BY MR. SIMPSON: 6 Q. With respect to the -- what's now still 7 Exhibit 2, the motion for limited intervention -- 8 MR. SCAROLA: Let me just observe for the 9 record that it's 12:02. I don't think we used 10 the three minutes that I said I was going to give 11 you, but we will go to 12:03 anyway. 12 MR. SIMPSON: This line of questioning will 13 take a little -- a little time, so -- 14 MR. SCAROLA: Well , what's a "little"? Oh, 15 so you -- 16 MR. SIMPSON: Five minutes. 17 MR. SCAROLA: So you prefer to wait then? 18 MR. SIMPSON: Let me ask -- I can ask you a 19 few questions here. 20 THE WITNESS: Sure. 21 BY MR. SIMPSON: 22 Q. I'm going to keep going. On the -- this is 23 your brief actually -- 24 A. Which -- 25 Q. -- Exhibit 1. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594556 319 1 A. Which -- let me just make sure which one is 2 it. I have Exhibit 2, but I don't think I have 3 Exhibit 1. 4 Q. Oh, I probably have Exhibit 1. Let me give 5 you Exhibit 1. I will give you 2 back so we don't lose 6 it -- 7 A. Okay. 8 Q. -- or keep it in front of you with the 9 others. 10 A. Okay. So, now, let's see. Okay. Yeah. I 11 have it. 12 Q. In preparing this brief, did you personally 13 review the citations to the record that were given to 14 support the factual assertions? 15 A. As opposed to somebody else on the legal 16 team? 17 Q. Yes. I'm trying to ascertain whether you, 18 yourself, reviewed citations -- I'm going to be asking 19 you about a deposition transcript -- citations to the 20 record evidence that are cited as representing to the 21 court as supporting the factual assertions? 22 A. I mean, I reviewed some, and others. You 23 know, maybe I need to -- this is starting to get into 24 work product. If you're asking, you know, what did Brad 25 do, what did you do, what did the paralegals do -- ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594557 320 1 Q. Let -- let me ask you a different question 2 then. 3 A. Okay. 4 Q. By -- by submitting this brief with your name 5 signing it, you were representing that the factual 6 allegations, factual assertions, were support -- are 7 supported by the record citations that are given for 8 those, correct? 9 A. Yeah. I mean, obviously, when you write a 10 brief, you're -- you're -- you know, you're trying to 11 represent that this is the best product I can come up 12 with. 13 Now, you know, in a 40-page brief did -- 14 did -- is there some, you know, error in citation or 15 something like that? I have to -- I'm not perfect. I'm 16 sure that's a possibility, but, you know, I worked hard 17 to try to put together the best product that I could on 18 behalf of when I filed this brief. 19 Q. And -- and in general, when a lawyer signs a 20 brief, it's a representation to the court that the 21 citations to the record support the factual -- 22 A. Yeah, to the -- 23 Q. -- propositions given to the court? 24 A. Yeah, that's right. To the best of, you 25 know, your ability, sure. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594558 321 1 Q. Take a look if you would at page 29 -- 2 A Okay. 3 Q. -- the top of the page -- 4 A. Okay. 5 Q. -- the statement: "Jane Doe number 3 came to 6 the house when Dershowitz was there." And then it's 7 "Id." which is a citation to the Alessi deposition, page 8 73, line 18 to 20. Do you see that? 9 A. I do. 10 Q. So that sentence if I -- do you agree with me 11 that sentence is representing to the court that 12 came to the Palm Beach house when Professor 13 Dershowitz was there? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. I'm going to read you what's cited for that 16 proposition. I can show it to you if you like. 17 A. I would like to see it because, you know, 18 it's possible I'm off. 19 Q. Let me read it for the record. 20 A. Sure. 21 Q. And I will read what is cited. It's page 73, 22 lines 22 to 25. 23 Actually -- I'm -- yeah, I'm sorry. 73, 18 24 to 20. Line 18: 25 "Not sure. When Mr. -- Mr. Dershowitz was ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594559 322 1 visiting? 2 "Uh-huh. Answer. 3 "Question: How often did he come? 4 "Answer: He came pretty -- pretty often. I 5 would says as least four or five times a year." 6 And that's what is cited as the support for 7 the proposition -- 8 A. I'd -- I would like to look at the document. 9 Q. I'm going to give you the document before I 10 ask you to comment on it. 11 A. Sure. 12 Q. I will -- I will go beyond what was cited to 13 the court -- 14 A. Okay. 15 Q. -- to put it in context. 16 A. But I mean, there's -- this is a large 17 well, that's what I'm saying. I would like -- my 18 recollection is that there are number of parties to the 19 Alessi depo -- 20 Q. No. My -- my only question is in this brief, 21 the lawyers signing it represented to the court that 22 this citation supported that factual assertion. 23 A. But that's true, yes. 24 Q. Okay. I will read it. 25 "Do you have any recollection of V.R., ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594560 323 1 , coming to the house when 2 Prince Andrew was there? Question. 3 "Answer: It could have been, but I'm not 4 sure. 5 "Not sure. When Mr. Dershowitz was visiting? 6 "Uh-huh. 7 "How often did he come? 8 "He came pretty -- he pretty often. I would 9 says at least four or five times a year." 10 A. Okay. 11 Q. Do you want to take a look at that? 12 A. Yeah. 13 MS. RICHARDSON: Page 73. 14 BY MR. SIMPSON: 15 Q. Page 73, line -- it's right here (indicating) 16 if it helps you find it. 17 A. Yeah. Okay. All right. That's what those 18 lines say, yes. 19 Q. Okay. So my -- my question is: In your 20 view, as an attorney, does that quotation -- does that 21 testimony support the assertion that Professor 22 Dershowitz and were in the house at the 23 same time? 24 A. Those -- those lines 18 to -- 25 Q. And if you want to put it in the context of a ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594561 324 1 couple of lines above it that do refer to 2 , put it in the context. 3 My question is: Does that, fairly read, 4 constitute testimony that and Professor 5 Dershowitz were in the house at the same time? 6 A. Those three sentences, three lines. 7 Q. What -- yes, what the brief cites. 8 A. Those -- those three lines: "Not sure When 9 Mr. Dershowitz was visiting. Uh-huh. How often did he 10 come?" Those -- those three lines, I agree, that looks 11 like a miscitation there. I agree with you on that. 12 Q. And isn't it true that -- first of all , 13 nothing else is cited in the brief or elsewhere to 14 support -- put -- put aside. 15 Other than own testimony, 16 this is the only evidence that you cited to the court to 17 support -- 18 A. No, no, no, no, no. That would require a 19 30-minute answer. 20 Q. Okay. I won't ask you a 30-minute answer -- 21 MR. SCAROLA: How about -- how about wrapping 22 it up then because it's now 12:10. 23 MR. SIMPSON: I will wrap it up. I have one 24 more -- one more question. 25 THE WITNESS: Okay. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594562 325 1 BY MR. SIMPSON: 2 Q. And that is: I just want to confirm that you 3 do agree with me that what was cited to the court for 4 the proposition that they were together, in this 5 sentence, doesn't support that proposition? 6 A. I will agree with you that there appears to 7 be a miscitation of the line number -- of the lines 18 8 through 20. 9 Now, you're saying that there is not 10 information outside of 8 -- lines 18 through 20 to 11 support the allegation, and that's going to require a 12 much longer answer. 13 Q. I don't want a long answer, but I do want to 14 clarify. When you say "outside" -- 15 MR. SCAROLA: You also said one more 16 question. 17 MR. SIMPSON: Well , I -- let me just finish 18 this, so we are not going to have this hanging, 19 because I want to make sure we are communicating. 20 THE WITNESS: Okay. Sure. 21 BY MR. SIMPSON: 22 Q. I understand you're -- you're saying that 23 there -- there may be evidence 24 A. Yeah. 25 Q. -- elsewhere? ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594563 326 1 A. The lawyer -- look, this is not the first 2 time 3 Q. I'm not asking the -- 4 A. -- a lawyer has cited the wrong line number 5 on a transcript or something, and if you're suggesting 6 that -- you know, I will concede that I cited the wrong 7 line number for that particular assertion. 8 Q. And this is what I want to clarify: When you 9 say the wrong line number, if you look at the quotation, 10 there is, up above -- you cited 18 to 20 -- 22 to 25 -- 11 no, 18 to 20. I'm sorry. You cited 18 to 20 which is 12 -- do you see that? 13 A. I do see 18 to 20, yes. 14 Q. And those lines don't refer to 15 coming to the house, correct? 16 A. Lines 18 to 20 do not refer to 17 -- oh, no, wait a minute. Now, this is -- 18 because when I look at it here, line 15: 19 "Do you have any recollection of V.R., 20 , coming to the house when 21 Prince Andrew was there?" 22 Answer: "It could have been. I'm not sure. 23 "Not sure. When Mr. Dershowitz was 24 visiting?" 25 So now when I read it, actually, I'm now ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594564 327 1 going to withdraw my earlier answer, I would -- because 2 you know, it's getting late in the day. I'm getting a 3 little fuzzy here. When Mr. Dershowitz was visiting, 4 uh-huh, could be an affirmative answer read in context 5 to saying, I don't recall about Prince Andrew, but I do 6 recall being there. And I think when 7 we unpack the entirety of the deposition, which we don't 8 have time right now, that the context that I'm 9 suggesting now would be accurate. So I am not prepared 10 to say, as I sit here right now, that those were the 11 wrong line numbers. 12 Perhaps those are the correct line numbers, 13 but what I think I should have done was to cite 14 additional parts of the transcript that would have, in 15 context, made clear that the assertion was correct. 16 MR. SCAROLA: With that -- 17 MR. SIMPSON: I -- I just need to finish this 18 one or two questions, but this is the topic, so 19 let me finish it. 20 BY MR. SIMPSON: 21 Q. Did you ever watch the video -- 22 MR. SCAROLA: Running out of tape -- 23 BY MR. SIMPSON: 24 Q. -- of the transcript? 25 MR. SCAROLA: We are also running out of tape ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594565 328 1 right now. 2 MR. SIMPSON: I've got -- 3 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Two minutes. 4 MR. SIMPSON: Two minutes. All right. That 5 won't take -- 6 BY MR. SIMPSON: 7 Q. I want you to look at the video of that -- 8 that testimony. Would you play it, please, for the 9 witness? This is from the videotape of the deposition. 10 THE WITNESS: I do not want to watch just -- 11 I want to watch -- what -- what I'm seeing here 12 as I dive into this, I would -- if you're going 13 to ask me questions about what's in these 14 particular lines, I want to see -- I want to go 15 back. I want all of the -- the relevant parts of 16 testimony played. And I 17 believe there are approximately four points in 18 the transcript where she's mentioned, so can we 19 play all four of those? 20 MR. SCAROLA: We are not going to do that. 21 We have run out of time. Per agreement, this was 22 supposed to stop at noon. 23 MR. SIMPSON: Okay. 24 MR. SCAROLA: It is now 12:12, so this 25 deposition is ended. There were a lot of things ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594566 329 1 that I would have like to have finished with 2 Professor Dershowitz and wasn't permitted to do 3 that. So by agreement, this deposition is now 4 over. 5 MR. SIMPSON: It -- it's -- it's ending over 6 my objection and the witness's -- 7 MR. SCAROLA: I -- I understand that. 8 MR. SIMPSON: -- the -- I'm going to make my 9 record. 10 MR. SCAROLA: Okay. 11 MR. SIMPSON: -- the witness's refusal to 12 look at the videotape of the portion of the 13 deposition that he just characterized in his 14 testimony as suggesting an affirmative answer to 15 the question of whether and 16 Professor Dershowitz were there at the same time, 17 and I will represent -- 18 MR. SCAROLA: That record is clear. 19 MR. SIMPSON: -- and anyone looking at that 20 videotape would know, to a moral certainty, that 21 that was false. 22 THE WITNESS: Okay. And I -- I want to make 23 clear that I would be happy to look at 24 everything. We will do that at another time 25 perhaps. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594567 330 1 MR. SCAROLA: Right. 2 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are going off the video 3 record, 12:14 p.m. 4 5 (Witness excused.) 6 (Deposition was adjourned.) 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594568 331 1 DEPOSITION ERRATA SHEET 2 3 Assignment no: 220190 4 BRADLEY J. EDWARDS and PAUL G. CASSELL vs. 5 ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ 6 7 DECLARATION UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY 8 9 I declare under penalty of perjury that I have 10 read the entire transcript of my deposition/examination 11 under oath taken in the captioned matter or the same 12 has been read to me, and the same is true and accurate, 13 save and except for changes and/or corrections, if any, 14 as indicated by me on the DEPOSITION ERRATA SHEET 15 hereof, with the understanding that I offer these 16 changes as if still under oath. 17 18 Signed on the day of 19 2015. 20 21 22 PAUL G. CASSELL 23 24 25 ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594569 332 1 DEPOSITION ERRATA SHEET 2 3 Page No. Line No. Change to: 4 5 Reason for change: 6 Page No. Line No. Change to: 7 8 Reason for change: 9 Page No. Line No. Change to: 10 11 Reason for change: 12 Page No. Line No. Change to: 13 14 Reason for change: 15 Page No. Line No. Change to: 16 17 Reason for change: 18 Page No. Line No. Change to: 19 20 Reason for change: 21 Page No. Line No. Change to: 22 23 Reason for change: 24 SIGNATURE: DATE: , 2015 25 PAUL G. CASSELL ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594570 333 1 DEPOSITION ERRATA SHEET 2 3 Page No. Line No. Change to: 4 5 Reason for change: 6 Page No. Line No. Change to: 7 8 Reason for change: 9 Page No. Line No. Change to: 10 11 Reason for change: 12 Page No. Line No. Change to: 13 14 Reason for change: 15 Page No. Line No. Change to: 16 17 Reason for change: 18 Page No. Line No. Change to: 19 20 Reason for change: 21 Page No. Line No. Change to: 22 23 Reason for change: 24 SIGNATURE: DATE: , 2015 25 PAUL G. CASSELL ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594571 334 1 CERTIFICATE OF OATH 2 3 STATE OF FLORIDA ) 4 COUNTY OF BROWARD ) 5 6 I, the undersigned authority and Notary 7 Public certify that PAUL G. CASSELL personally 8 appeared before me and was duly sworn on Saturday, the 9 17th day of October, 2015. 10 11 Sworn to before me this 19th day of October, 12 2015. 13 14 15 16 17 18 Theresa Tomaselli, RMR Notary Public - State of Florida 19 My Commission No. FF 226528 Commission Expires 8/27/2019 20 2 My20190 21 22 23 24 25 ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594572 335 1 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE 2 3 4 I, THERESA TOMASELLI, Registered Merit Reporter and Notary Public in and for the State of 5 Florida at Large, do hereby certify that I was authorized to and did report said deposition in 6 stenotype; and that the foregoing pages are a true and correct transcription of my shorthand notes of said 7 deposition. 8 I further certify that said deposition was taken at the time and place hereinabove set forth and 9 that the taking of said deposition was commenced and completed as hereinabove set out. 10 I further certify that I am not an 11 attorney or counsel of any of the parties, nor am I a relative or employee of any attorney or counsel of party 12 connected with the action, nor am I financially interested in the action. 13 The foregoing certification of this 14 transcript does not apply to any reproduction of the same by any means unless under the direct control and/or 15 direction of the certifying reporter. 16 DATED this 19th day of October, 2015. 17 18 19 THERESA TOMASELLI 20 220190 21 22 23 24 25 EFTA00594573