101 1 $80,000 of their own money to start the charity. 2 She didn't indicate which lawyers. But the lawyers 3 had contributed $80,000 of their own money to start 4 the charity and that they were going to fund the 5 charity by contribution from Leslie -- from the man 6 from Columbus who owned Victoria's Secret and they 7 expected a very substantial contribution. 8 They also said that -- 12:05:02 9 Q. I'm sorry, but "they" is not helpful to 12:05:04 10 me. 11 A. She -- when I say "they" -- when I talk 12:05:07 12 about the substance, I'm always talking about her. 13 I never had any conversations about the substance 14 with him. 15 She said that they were hoping to fund the 12:05:17 16 charity by substantial contribution from Leslie 17 Wexner and that they thought that by getting on 18 television, they would increase the chances of 19 raising this money from Leslie Wexner. 20 And that she thought they had already made 12:05:37 21 contact with Wexner and that they had already 22 made -- with the man from Columbus, and they had 23 already made contact with ABC. But I don't think 24 she knew at that point whether the actual interviews 25 did or did not occur. Oh, she did tell me that she EFTA00601254

102 1 went to New York at some point for the interviews. 2 Q. "She" who? 12:06:04 3 A. She, Rebecca, told me that had 12:06:05 4 gone to New York and so she assumed that she was 5 into New York for the interviews. 6 Q. So this was a conversation that you 12:06:17 7 assumed took place after was 8 interviewed in New York? 9 A. I don't know. I don't know. 12:06:25 10 Q. That's what you were told? 12:06:26 11 A. No. I was told that she was in New York. 12:06:27 12 I'm just giving you the facts, sir. 13 Q. Okay. Any other information exchanged 12:06:31 14 between you and Rebecca and/or Michael during the 15 third conversation? 16 A. I can't recall during the third 12:06:44 17 conversation any further information that was 18 exchanged, no. 19 Q. Did you place that phone call on a 12:06:50 20 landline or cell phone? 21 A. I don't remember. 12:06:54 22 Q. Do you have a landline in New York? 12:06:58 23 A. I do. 12:07:00 24 Q. Do you have a landline in Massachusetts? 12:07:01 25 A. Yes. 12:07:05 EFTA00601255

103 1 Q. What's the next communication that you had 12:07:07 2 with Rebecca and/or Michael? When did it occur? 3 A. I don't recall. I don't recall. I know 12:07:16 4 we had further communications. They were mostly 5 repetitions and I have no specific recollection of 6 when -- when they occurred. And I was constantly 7 saying to her, can I -- you know, are you feeling 8 comfortable about being public with this? And she 9 kept saying no. 10 Q. Were there any more substantive 12:07:47 11 communications that occurred between you and Rebecca 12 and/or Michael? 13 A. I would say that none that gave me new 12:07:54 14 information. I would constantly ask them, you know, 15 to reiterate has anything changed, have you changed 16 your mind, have you remembered anything new. But 17 basically what I've told you was the substance of 18 the information: A, that she didn't ever mention 19 me; B, that she was pressured into mentioning me by 20 her lawyers; C, that she was going to raise a 21 billion dollars or half of the net worth of the guy 22 from Columbus, Ohio. 23 And the next, that she was going to be 12:08:25 24 interviewed by ABC in an effort to make it clear 25 that she had, A, credibility, that ABC would give EFTA00601256

104 1 her credibility, and that that would help her in her 2 efforts to obtain money from her -- I think at some 3 point she also mentioned that she would go after 4 other people that she hadn't yet named in an effort 5 to obtain money from them as well. 6 Q. Did you ever directly ask Rebecca if 12:08:58 7 had admitted that she had never met 8 you? 9 A. No. 12:09:08 10 Q. Did you ever -- well, why not? Why didn't 12:09:09 11 you ask that question? 12 A. I just -- 12:09:13 13 MR. SCOTT: Objection. Go ahead. 12:09:15 14 A. I just wanted to get her to tell me what 12:09:15 15 she was going to tell me. I was very satisfied with 16 her answers. There were a lot of questions I could 17 have asked. I had to treat her very gently. I 18 wanted to keep her on the phone for as short a 19 period of time as possible. I didn't want to be 20 perceived as in any way harassing her. And so I 21 didn't ask that question directly. 22 BY MR. SCAROLA: 12:09:41 23 Q. Well, certainly one of the most 12:09:41 24 significant questions that you could have asked her 25 was: Did ever admit she never met me? EFTA00601257

105 1 That would be pretty significant, wouldn't 12:09:52 2 it? 3 MR. SCOTT: Objection, form, 12:09:55 4 argumentative. 5 A. What I asked her was to please recall 12:09:57 6 everything that had said to her. 7 BY MR. SCAROLA: 12:10:00 8 Q. Yes, sir. But that's not my question to 12:10:00 9 you. 10 A. I didn't -- 12:10:02 11 Q. It would have been very significant had 12:10:03 12 ever said, I never met Alan 13 Dershowitz, right? 14 MR. SCOTT: Objection, argumentative. Go 12:10:10 15 ahead. 16 A. It wouldn't have been significant to me 12:10:11 17 because I know that never met Alan 18 Dershowitz. It would have been significant to me if 19 she could have so testified. But I didn't want to 20 in any way turn off her as a source of information. 21 And so I didn't ask her very many questions at all. 22 I wanted her to tell me her best recollection 23 unprompted and unquestioned. 24 I didn't want to subject her to a series 12:10:37 25 of examination questions. I wanted her to tell EFTA00601258

106 1 me -- for example, the whole thing about the guy 2 from Columbus, I didn't know anything about that. 3 She just said that in the course of conversing with 4 me and led me to conclude that there was an 5 extortion plot. 6 I had actually believed there was an 12:10:52 7 extortion plot from the very beginning and said 8 that. But I had no real knowledge about who the 9 ultimate object of the extortion plot was until I 10 was able to confirm with Leslie Wexner's people 11 that, in fact, overtures been made to him at about 12 the same time as my name was publicly and falsely 13 revealed. So it all fit together. 14 And my own view is that a prosecutor would 12:11:21 15 look very, very harshly at the sequence of events 16 that occurred in this case and might welcome the 17 conclusion that there was a criminal extortion plot. 18 Which is my belief. 19 BY MR. SCAROLA: 12:11:37 20 Q. Well, we know you never made a Bar 12:11:37 21 complaint. 22 A. Huh-huh. 12:11:39 23 Q. Did you ever file a criminal complaint 12:11:39 24 against any of these extortionists or perjury 25 suborners? EFTA00601259

107 1 A. We actually talked about that. And -- 12:11:47 2 Q. Who's the "we"? 12:11:50 3 MR. SIMPSON: Don't disclose any -- 12:11:53 4 THE WITNESS: Okay -- 12:11:53 5 MR. SIMPSON: -- lawyer-client 12:11:54 6 A. I had conversations about that with 12:11:55 7 appropriate persons, yes. And I discussed it with 8 Wexner's lawyers. 9 BY MR. SCAROLA: 12:12:07 10 Q. Are you answering yes to my question that 12:12:08 11 you have filed a criminal complaint? 12 A. Not yet. 12:12:12 13 Q. Okay. So it has been ten months since you 12:12:14 14 allegedly became aware of that suborning of perjury 15 and some eight months since your allegedly having 16 become aware of the extortion plot, but you have 17 filed no criminal complaints against anyone, 18 correct? 19 A. To answer that question requires me to 12:12:40 20 disclose conversations I had with David Boies. I 21 would love to answer that question. 22 Q. No, sir, it does not. 12:12:48 23 A. Yes, it does. 12:12:49 24 MR. SCOTT: Whoa, you can't -- how can you 12:12:49 25 say -- EFTA00601260

108 1 BY MR. SCAROLA: 12:12:51 2 Q. Whether you filed a criminal complaint or 12:12:51 3 not. 4 A. Yes, it does. 12:12:52 5 MR. SCOTT: Please, Jack, he can't say 12:12:53 6 that. 7 A. It does involve conversation I had with 12:12:54 8 David Boies. 9 BY MR. SCAROLA: 12:12:57 10 Q. Well, in that case, in light of the fact 12:12:57 11 that that is a matter that will be addressed by the 12 Court, we'll save that question for another time. 13 A. I'm anxious to answer it. 12:13:05 14 Q. And I'm anxious to get an answer. 12:13:09 15 A. Well, I hope we can agree I should be able 12:13:10 16 to answer it. 17 Q. Have we exhausted your recollection of the 12:13:20 18 details of conversations that you had with Rebecca 19 and Michael? 20 A. About the substance of what she told me. 12:13:27 21 There were many conversations involving would she do 22 this, would she do that. But the conversations, the 23 substance we've exhausted. 24 Q. Okay. Well -- 12:13:40 25 A. That is A, B, C, D, E, as I said, those 12:13:40 EFTA00601261

109 1 those are what I've told you is the substance, the 2 details of what she said. And she said nothing 3 different or new, to my recollection, in any of the 4 brief subsequent conversations that we may have had. 5 Q. Which phone call was it when she finally 12:14:01 6 disclosed her full name? 7 A. Not the first. It was either the second 12:14:19 8 or the third conversation. Probably the second 9 conversation. First I got his name and I checked 10 him out, checked on Google to make sure that he was 11 who he says he was and lived where he lived. And 12 then she gave me her name. 13 Q. So, when you say you checked Michael out, 12:14:39 14 what you did is you Googled him; is that right? 15 A. I just Googled him to see that he lived in 12:14:43 16 the place where he lived and was 17 Q. Okay. Did you do any other background 12:14:46 18 information? 19 A. Well, I was -- no, I was obviously 12:14:49 20 concerned that maybe I was being set up by your 21 clients. And so I wanted to be sure that this 22 wasn't a setup, that this was an honorable person, 23 which is why I asked my wife also to listen to 24 the -- I think it was the second conversation. And 25 she concluded that she sounded completely honest, EFTA00601262

110 1 trustworthy and -- and anxious just to say exactly 2 and precisely what happened. And so I became 3 convinced that she was authentic and not -- not a 4 setup. 5 Q. Okay. So, in order to investigate 12:15:26 6 Michael, you Googled him but did nothing else? 7 A. That's all. To my recollection, that's 12:15:32 8 all I did is Google him. 9 Q. But you also relied upon both your and 12:15:35 10 your wife's personal assessment of the credibility 11 of these people; is that right? 12 A. Absolutely. That's right, yes. 12:15:44 13 Q. A skill that you've developed over the 12:15:46 14 course of your years of practice, right? 15 MR. SCOTT: Objection. Go ahead. 12:15:52 16 A. I just relied on it. I mean, I'm not -- I 12:15:52 17 don't know how good I am at it. But some people are 18 very good liars. But I believed her. That was my 19 judgment. 20 My wife, who is a, you know, Ph.D. 12:16:06 21 neuropsychologist with a lot of experience, we all 22 thought she sounded -- we both thought she sounded 23 incredibly truthful. 24 BY MR. SCAROLA: 12:16:16 25 Q. But was it all or was it both? 12:16:17 EFTA00601263

111 1 A. Just both, just the two of us. 12:16:19 2 Q. You and your wife? 12:16:20 3 A. Just me and my wife, yeah. 12:16:21 4 Q. So -- 12:16:24 5 A. My wife is southern, so I'm used to the 12:16:24 6 phrase "all." 7 Q. You relied upon your personal assessment 12:16:27 8 of 9 A. That's right. 12:16:30 10 Q. -- Rebecca's credibility? 12:16:30 11 A. That's right. 12:16:32 12 Q. And you relied upon your wife's assessment 12:16:33 13 of Rebecca's credibility? 14 A. That's right. 12:16:37 15 Q. And did you do any further investigation 12:16:38 16 of her? 17 A. No. Well, yes, of course, I corroborated 12:16:44 18 everything she said by talking to Leslie Wexner's 19 wife, talking to Leslie Wexner's lawyers, talking to 20 ABC, and finding out that everything she said to me 21 was absolutely true, yes. 22 Q. Well, the one thing that you didn't 12:17:01 23 corroborate was anything that 24 allegedly said to her about you? 25 A. Of course I did. Of course I did. 12:17:10 EFTA00601264

112 1 Q. How did you do that? 12:17:12 2 A. I corroborated what said, 12:17:13 3 that she was -- was going to sue Leslie -- she was 4 going to go after Leslie Wexner to try to get a lot 5 of money -- 6 Q. Let me make sure you understand my 12:17:26 7 question. 8 A. Yeah. Yeah. 12:17:27 9 Q. Okay? You have corroborated surrounding 12:17:28 10 circumstances -- 11 A. Right. 12:17:36 12 Q. related to you by Rebecca? 12:17:36 13 A. Right. Right. 12:17:40 14 Q. You did not corroborate anything that 12:17:41 15 Rebecca told you about what said 16 regarding you personally, correct? 17 A. Of course I did. No, of course I did. I 12:17:53 18 corroborated it by my absolute firm and complete and 19 unequivocal knowledge that your clients' allegations 20 against me and ' allegations against 21 me were totally and completely false and completely 22 made up. So I knew that. That knowledge 23 corroborated her statements. 24 Q. Well, the statement that you have related 12:18:14 25 is that Rebecca said was pressured EFTA00601265

13.3 1 into naming you -- 2 A. There were -- 12:18:24 3 Q. -- correct? 12:18:25 4 A. No, there were two statements. One that 12:18:26 5 never mentioned me in connection 6 with anybody that she had any sexual contact with. 7 I knew that was true. Your clients know that that 8 is false. And me knowing it's true served to 9 corroborate that statement by her. 10 Q. How could you possibly know whether 12:18:45 11 ever mentioned your name before 12 December of 2014? 13 A. Because it was false and because she would 12:18:54 14 not have mentioned my name until her lawyers 15 pressured her into doing it because I had no contact 16 with her. 17 Q. Do you have a copy of the statement that 12:19:11 18 made to the FBI? 19 A. I don't have it here, no. 12:19:16 20 Q. Have you seen it? 12:19:17 21 A. Her statement to the FBI? 12:19:20 22 Q. Yes. 12:19:22 23 A. No, but I do know that she never told the 12:19:23 24 FBI anything about me whatsoever. Because I was 25 told that by Jeffrey Sloman, who was the assistant EFTA00601266

114 1 United States attorney in charge of this case. 2 Jeffrey Sloman said he was prepared to file a sworn 3 affidavit that my name never came up, period, during 4 any investigation whatsoever, and that if my name 5 had in any way come up, I would not have been 6 allowed to participate in the negotiations because I 7 would have had a conflict of interest. 8 Jeffrey Sloman said that to me and to 12:19:55 9 other people and tried very hard to get the Justice 10 Department to allow him to file an affidavit 11 asserting that. So I know it's true. And I know 12 it's false what you're alleging; namely, that she 13 said she had sex with me or implying that to the 14 FBI. 15 If she did, she's committed yet an 12:20:14 16 additional crime, 1001, by lying to an FBI agent, 17 which if she did I'd like to know about that because 18 I'd like to then file a formal complaint with the 19 FBI about that, or with the Justice Department. 20 I recommend that you speak to Jeffrey 12:20:33 21 Sloman. 22 Q. You know that is not the 12:20:35 23 only person who has sworn under oath that you were 24 present at Jeffrey Epstein's Palm Beach home with 25 young girls, right? EFTA00601267

in 1 A. No. 12:20:54 2 Q. You don't know that? 12:20:55 3 A. No. I know that -- 12:20:57 4 Q. Well, that's fine. You've answered my 12:20:59 5 question. That's not something you know? 6 A. A, I was not present in Jeffrey Epstein's 12:21:02 7 home with any underage young women, period. Never, 8 ever under any circumstances. 9 B, I am not aware that anyone has sworn 12:21:12 10 under oath that I was there during the relevant 11 periods of time, which is a three-year period 12 between the summer of 1999 and the summer of 2002. 13 Because I was never -- as far as I know, I was never 14 in Jeffrey Epstein's home during that period of 15 time, period. 16 Q. I want to go back to the Ashes, if I 12:21:36 17 could. Joanne Ashe is not a lawyer, is she? 18 A. Joanne Ashe is not a lawyer, no. 12:21:42 19 Q. And is Alexi Ashe a lawyer? 12:21:44 20 A. Yes. 12:21:46 21 Q. Has Alexi Ashe ever been your lawyer? 12:21:49 22 A. I have discussed the case with Alexi Ashe. 12:21:53 23 She is a full-time sex trafficking prosecutor whose 24 whole career has been going after sex traffickers in 25 the Brooklyn District Attorney's office and I have EFTA00601268

116 1 discussed my case with her. 2 Q. Has Alexi Ashe ever been your lawyer? 3 A. I would say not, no. 4 Q. Beginning approximately January 3 or 4 of 5 2015, you began a mass media campaign battle against 6 7 that they were sleazy, unethical lawyers who 8 9 A. That's a false 10 11 12 A. That's a false statement. 13 I did not begin. It was your clients who 14 began it. Your clients began it by filing false 15 statements in a federal court which the judge struck 16 and sanctioned them for as being irrelevant and 17 pertinent and he used other language. 18 19 began it in order to get massive press attention to 20 21 called me, the press called me immediately and asked 22 me for my reaction. I was totally shocked that any 23 lawyer would make these kinds of outrageous 24 career-destroying allegations without even calling 25 me and asking me if I would deny it or have any Bradley Edwards and Professor Paul Cassell alleging fabricated false charges against you, correct? MR. SCOTT: Objection, argumentative, mass media, et cetera. They began it. It is my belief that they it. And my -- my responses were when the press 12:22:09 12:22:11 12:22:23 12:22:46 12:22:46 12:22:46 12:22:49 12:23:10 EFTA00601269

117 1 evidence to provide for them. 2 And when I was called by the media, I did 12:23:47 3 what you would do, Mr. Scarola, or what your clients 4 would do, I defended myself. What any American 5 would do under the First Amendment, I categorically 6 denied career-destroying false statements and I told 7 the truth, which is what the United States 8 Constitution is all about and why we fought for 9 liberty. Yes, I told the truth to the media. 10 BY MR. SCAROLA: 12:24:10 11 Q. You engaged in a mass media campaign to 12:24:11 12 convince the world that Bradley Edwards and 13 Professor Paul Cassell were unethical lawyers who 14 had fabricated false charges against you, correct? 15 MR. SCOTT: Objection, argumentative. 12:24:30 16 A. No, that's not correct. I responded to 12:24:31 17 press inquiries by telling the truth. My goal was 18 to let the world know that 19 allegations against me were totally false. These 20 stories appeared, as far as I can tell, in every 21 single newspaper in the world and on every media, 22 which was part of their plot and the plan of your 23 clients, which is why they absurdly mentioned 24 Prince Andrew, claiming in the most absurd way -- 25 that they mentioned him because he was trying to EFTA00601270

118 1 lobby prosecutors to get a reduced sentence for 2 Jeffrey Epstein, they obviously put Prince Andrew in 3 there in order to get massive publicity around the 4 world. And every media in the world practically 5 6 7 BY MR. SCAROLA: 8 9 10 were unethical lawyers who fabricated false charges 11 against you, right? 12 A. The truth -- 13 MR. SCOTT: Objection, form. 14 15 that the charges against me were false and 16 fabricated, that I never had any sexual contact 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 called me from the BBC, to CBS, to ABC, to CNN and I responded to lies with the truth. 12:25:26 Q. And the truth that you attempted to convey 12:25:27 was that Bradley Edwards and Professor Paul Cassell A. The truth that I intended to convey was BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. Fabricated by whom, sir? A. Please don't interrupt me. MR. SCOTT: Objection, interrupting. BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. Please answer the question. A. Please don't interrupt -- MR. SCOTT: He's answering them. You may not like the answer, but he's answering them. 12:25:42 12:25:43 12:25:44 12:25:52 12:25:52 12:25:54 12:25:55 12:25:55 12:25:55 12:25:56 12:25:57 EFTA00601271

119 1 A. Now you've -- you've made me lose my train 12:26:02 2 of thought, so -- 3 MR. SCOTT: Can you read the question back 12:26:05 4 and the -- read the question back and his 5 answers, please. 6 (Requested portion read back.) 12:26:08 7 THE COURT REPORTER: The question was: 12:26:08 8 "And the truth that you attempted to convey was 9 that Bradley Edwards and Professor Paul Cassell 10 were unethical lawyers who fabricated false 11 charges against you, right?" 12 And the answer was: "The truth that I 12:26:08 13 intended to convey was that the charges against 14 me were false and fabricated, that I never had 15 any sexual contact" -- and then the question 16 was -- the answer was interrupted. 17 A. Okay. Let me continue. That I never had 12:26:42 18 any sexual contact with because 19 Professor Cassell insisted on conveying to the 20 public that he was a former judge and that he was a 21 professor and that he was using, improperly in my 22 view, the stationery and name of his university to 23 add credibility to his claims, I felt that it was 24 imperative for me to indicate that he was engaging 25 in improper and unethical conduct. EFTA00601272

120 1 It would have been improper for me to have 12:27:18 2 allowed his use of his credibility as a former 3 federal judge, as a professor who uses, misuses his 4 university imprimatur, it was very important for me 5 to attack the credibility of the messengers of the 6 false information. 7 And it was important for me to also remind 12:27:43 8 the public that Bradley Edwards was a partner of 9 Rothstein, a man who is spending 50 years in jail 10 for fraudulently creating a Ponzi scheme to sell 11 Jeffrey Epstein cases that didn't exist. Yes, it 12 was very important for me to indicate the back -- 13 the real backgrounds of these lawyers and to make 14 sure that the public didn't believe that because 15 they were credible, their story must be credible. 16 In fact, one of the first questions that I 12:28:22 17 was asked repeatedly by the media is: Why would a 18 former federal judge level a false charge against 19 you? Why would a distinguished personal injury 20 lawyer level a false charge against you? 21 And it was important for me to indicate 12:28:36 22 why they would, that they were trying to do it for 23 crass financial reasons, they were trying to do it 24 to open up a non-prosecution agreement, they were 25 trying to do it for reasons that were improper. EFTA00601273

121 1 So, yes, I did -- you know, Mr. Edwards, 12:28:55 2 your client, is shaking his head, but when he's 3 deposed under oath, he's not going to be able to 4 simply shake his head. He's going to have to answer 5 specific and direct questions. 6 BY MR. SCAROLA: 12:29:11 7 Q. Let me try my question. 12:29:12 8 Did you charge Bradley Edwards and 12:29:16 9 Professor Paul Cassell in your mass media 10 appearances with fabricating false charges against 11 you? 12 MR. SCOTT: Objection, form. 12:29:29 13 A. My media appearances were largely in 12:29:33 14 response to media requests of me. I did not conduct 15 a media campaign. The object of my speaking to the 16 media was to respond to their questions. Their 17 questions were, number 1, did you ever have any 18 sexual contact with ? And I 19 unequivocally stated no. 20 I stated that I knew there were no videos 12:30:01 21 or photographs because the event didn't occur. 22 stated that I would submit a sworn affidavit, which 23 in effect waived the statute of limitations. I 24 stated unequivocally that I was innocent of those 25 false charges. EFTA00601274

122 1 I was then asked by the media, well, why 12:30:29 2 would somebody who is a former federal judge and 3 professor at a law school make these false charges? 4 I responded to those questions. Why would somebody 5 like a distinguished personal injury lawyer make 6 those false charges? And I responded to those 7 questions. And everything I said was the truth as I 8 believed it to be at the time. 9 BY MR. SCAROLA: 12:30:55 10 Q. Do you remember the question that was 12:30:57 11 asked of you? 12 A. Yes, I've answered it. 12:30:58 13 Q. What was the question? 12:31:00 14 A. As part of massive media campaign, did I 12:31:03 15 charge your clients with deliberately falsifying a 16 charge against me, and my answer satisfies that 17 question. 18 Q. No, I don't think it does. Can you tell 12:31:18 19 us whether that's what you did, did you charge -- 20 A. I just did. 12:31:22 21 Q. -- them with having intentionally 12:31:23 22 fabricated false charges against you? 23 A. I believe that they intentionally 12:31:28 24 fabricated false evidence against me. I believe 25 that they pressured their client into fabricating EFTA00601275

123 1 false evidence against me. I believe that they 2 helped to draft a perjurious affidavit that was 3 filed in court, after they knew that I said I could 4 prove that I couldn't have been there four of the 5 five places that the alleged acts could have 6 occurred. 7 I believe that when they recently sought 12:31:59 8 to submit an additional claim repeating these 9 charges into the federal court, that they did it 10 knowing full well that these charges were false. 11 That's my belief, yes. 12 Q. Are you aware that your lawyers filed a 12:32:14 13 pleading on your behalf in this case with the title 14 Defendant Alan M. Dershowitz's Answer to the 15 Complaint and Counterclaim? 16 A. I'm not aware of that. 12:32:23 17 Q. Pardon me? 12:32:24 18 A. I'm not aware of the title of any legal 12:32:25 19 pleadings. 20 Q. Do you know that an answer has been filed 12:32:28 21 to the defamation action that has been brought 22 against you? 23 A. Of course. I mean, I'm sure there's been 12:32:34 24 a legal answer prepared. Of course, that's what 25 lawyers do. EFTA00601276

124 1 Q. Are you aware that there's also a 12:32:40 2 counterclaim that has been filed on your behalf? 3 A. Yes, I authorized the counterclaim to be 12:32:43 4 filed because I believe that your clients defamed me 5 and that Mr. Cassell wrote a letter to ABC, which 6 not even plausibly is within the claim of privilege, 7 which asserts that I had -- asserts falsely and in a 8 defamatory way that I had had sexual contact with 9 yes. 10 Q. Did you read the answer to the complaint 12:33:06 11 and counterclaim -- 12 A. I'm sure I did. 12:33:10 13 Q. -- before it was filed? 12:33:11 14 A. I'm sure I did. 12:33:11 15 Q. And I assume that you approved of it, 12:33:13 16 correct? 17 A. I assume I did, yes. 12:33:17 18 Q. Okay. 12:33:18 19 MR. SCOTT: I object to anything as far as 12:33:20 20 using pleadings like this, but go ahead and do 21 it. 22 BY MR. SCAROLA: 12:33:23 23 Q. As a law professor, would it be fair for 12:33:24 24 us to assume that you know the difference between 25 simple negligence and recklessness? EFTA00601277

125 1 A. That's something that you could spend an 12:33:32 2 entire semester teaching the difference between 3 simple negligence and recklessness. That's very 4 much a matter of degree and the courts are are 5 split very much on what the meaning of 6 "recklessness" is, particularly in the context of 7 defamation. It's a very complicated subject. 8 Q. Do you personally recognize that there is 12:33:51 9 a difference between simple negligence and 10 recklessness? 11 A. At the extremes, yes, simple negligence is 12:33:58 12 failure to perform a duty and recklessness is 13 failure to perform a duty knowing that there 14 knowing or should know that there is a likelihood of 15 some harm being committed. That's just what I 16 remember from first year torts. 17 Q. And you do also recognize that there is a 12:34:17 18 distinction between simple negligence and 19 recklessness on one hand and intentional wrongdoing 20 on the other, correct? 21 A. Again, I've argued cases about this issue. 12:34:27 22 And it's a continuum. Sometimes courts say "that 23 should have known" is the equivalent of "knowing." 24 So it's a continuum. There's not an absolute 25 straight line between those two, yeah. EFTA00601278

126 1 Q. Well, what are you charging Professor Paul 12:34:48 2 Cassell and Bradley Edwards with having done? Were 3 they negligent, reckless; or did they knowingly and 4 willfully fabricate false charges against you? 5 MR. SCOTT: Let me object to the form. 12:35:11 6 It's compound. 7 And, Professor, if you would like to 12:35:13 8 review the complaint and the counterclaim 9 before you respond to that, you have the 10 absolute right to do that. 11 THE WITNESS: I'd like to do that, yes. 12:35:21 12 BY MR. SCAROLA: 12:35:23 13 Q. Okay. Let me withdraw that question and 12:35:23 14 let me ask this question. 15 MR. SCOTT: My position, just so we 12:35:26 16 understand, is -- and this is a legal 17 objection -- is that while I don't think you 18 can use pleadings to cross-examine a witness, 19 if you're going to do it, he has the right to 20 see it, have it in front of him and respond to 21 it -- 22 MR. SCAROLA: That's why I was -- 12:35:37 23 MR. SCOTT: -- as opposed to asking 12:35:38 24 questions in the vagueness. 25 MR. SCAROLA: That's why I'm withdrawing 12:35:40 EFTA00601279

127 1 the question. 2 MR. SCOTT: Thank you. 12:35:43 3 BY MR. SCAROLA: 12:35:43 4 Q. What do you contend, independent of 12:35:43 5 anything that may be in any pleadings, Bradley 6 Edwards and Paul Cassell are responsible for, 7 negligence, recklessness, or intentional and willful 8 fabrication of lies? 9 A. Let me answer that question in full. It 12:36:02 10 is my belief as I sit here today that 11 never accused me of having any sexual 12 contact with her because I never did have any sexual 13 contact with her. And that your clients, Edwards 14 and Cassell, sat with her and said to her, look, if 15 we want to get the NPA knocked out, we have to find 16 a lawyer who worked on the NPA, but who you also had 17 sexual contact with. The only lawyer who fits that 18 description is Alan Dershowitz. Think back, think 19 hard, did you ever have any sexual contact with Alan 20 Dershowitz? 21 And they pressured her into falsely 12:36:48 22 stating something that they knew or should have 23 known was an absolute and deliberate lie. They 24 could have easily found that out. They could have 25 pressed her very hard on why she hadn't previously EFTA00601280

128 1 named me. They could have pressed her very hard on 2 dates and times and specifics of where these alleged 3 acts could have occurred. And they didn't do that. 4 So I think that it comes much closer to 12:37:18 5 the intentional side of the continuum than the 6 negligence side of the continuum. 7 Q. Well, you've described it earlier as 12:37:35 8 suborning perjury. That's absolutely intentional, 9 isn't it? 10 MR. SCOTT: Objection, argumentative, 12:37:40 11 repetitious. Go ahead, you can answer it. 12 A. I believe that when the time came to file 12:37:44 13 the affidavit in which she described six -- at least 14 six alleged incidents of sexual misconduct with me, 15 including having me standing next to Jeffrey Epstein 16 while he was receiving oral sex, that they knew that 17 that was false. And that I believe that they 18 probably drafted the affidavit. And to my mind, 19 that is subornation of perjury, yes. A criminal 20 act. 21 BY MR. SCAROLA: 12:38:20 22 Q. They encouraged to make 12:38:21 23 up lies about you and provided the details of those 24 lies to her? 25 A. No, no -- 12:38:30 EFTA00601281

129 1 MR. SCOTT: Objection, argumentative, 12:38:32 2 repetitious. 3 A. I believe they encouraged 12:38:33 4 to make up lies about me and -- and pressed her and 5 asked her to put in details. She would never on her 6 own have come up with some of the details. They're 7 absurd details. 8 I mean, it's very, very bad lawyering on 12:38:49 9 their part, by the way. Very bad lawyering for 10 having her put in details that were so clearly and 11 demonstrably false, such as, for example, meeting 12 Bill Clinton on the island. And they should have 13 known, by the way, when they put in an allegation 14 against me that she had also said that she twice met 15 Al Gore with his wife, once on an air -- once on 16 Jeffrey Epstein's airplane and once on the island. 17 And it is completely clear, and David 12:39:21 18 Boies was the lawyer for -- for Al Gore, as was 19 as was I, we worked together on that case, that a 20 simple phone call from -- from David Boies to 21 Al Gore would have established that they don't know 22 each other, that he's never been on the island, 23 never been on his airplane. 24 I made a simple phone call on day one and 12:39:46 25 established that. So your clients could have easily EFTA00601282

130 1 determined that she just lied, lied, lied, lied. 2 She lied about Al Gore. She lied about Ehud Barak, 3 she lied about Bill Clinton. She lied about many, 4 many other people. 5 This is something that your clients could 12:40:06 6 easily have found out about, but they closed their 7 eyes. They willfully blinded themself to a long 8 history of lying by your client and willingly put in 9 an affidavit that they knew would destroy my career, 10 my 50-year career which I worked so hard to build, 11 coming from a poor background, with no college 12 education, being the first member of my family to go 13 to college, working so hard to build a career, 14 having an unblemished personal life, and then they 15 willingly put in these false allegations without 16 checking. Shame on them. 17 BY MR. SCAROLA: 12:40:49 18 Q. During the period of time between 1998 and 12:40:50 19 2002, you owned a home in the Cambridge area, 20 correct? 21 A. Yes. 12:41:04 22 Q. Single-family home in a residential area? 12:41:04 23 A. Yes. 12:41:07 24 Q. Would you please describe the exterior of 12:41:07 25 that home to us? EFTA00601283

131 1 A. Yes. It was wooden home, built by an 12:41:12 2 architect named Coolidge. Had a little basketball 3 hoop where I played basketball with my children on 4 one side. It had a swimming pool -- an indoor 5 swimming pool on the other side. The exterior was 6 gray/blue wood. 7 Q. If someone were to enter through the front 12:41:41 8 door of your home, would they see some sort of stone 9 configuration outside the house? 10 A. After a period of time, we had a 12:41:56 11 sculpture a sculptor from Martha's Vineyard make 12 a stone sculpture and a light that stood outside of 13 our house. You can probably see that on Google. 14 Q. When -- when was that stone sculpture 12:42:10 15 installed? 16 A. I would have to check. I don't know. But 12:42:16 17 anybody can see that on Google Maps. 18 MR. SCOTT: Let me object to the relevancy 12:42:20 19 of all this. 20 BY MR. SCAROLA: 12:42:23 21 Q. Describe the floor plan at the entry level 12:42:24 22 of the house, please. 23 MR. SCOTT: Can you make a proffer as to 12:42:26 24 what the relevancy to this is? 25 MR. SCAROLA: Not until after I get the 12:42:29 EFTA00601284

132 1 questions answered. 2 A. You walk into the house, and there's a 12:42:33 3 foyer that extends probably about 6-foot wide and 4 maybe 20 feet long. Yeah. Yeah. 5 BY MR. SCAROLA: 12:42:58 6 Q. Is there a kitchen at the entry level? 12:42:59 7 A. There is only an entry level and so 12:43:03 8 Q. One-story home? 12:43:05 9 A. It's a one-story home. 12:43:06 10 Q. And so the kitchen is on that first floor? 12:43:07 11 A. Kitchen is on the first floor to the left, 12:43:11 12 yes. 13 Q. And is there a living room or a lounge 12:43:13 14 room adjacent to the kitchen? 15 A. Adjacent to the kitchen there is a large 12:43:22 16 room which serves part of it as a dining area and 17 part of it as a living room, yes. 18 Q. And during this period of time that we're 12:43:29 19 focusing on between 1998 and 20 A. 1998? 12:43:38 21 Q. Yes, sir. 12:43:39 22 A. Okay, okay. 12:43:40 23 Q. Between 1998 and 2002, how was the -- how 12:43:42 24 was that room furnished? 25 A. Well, it would be easy to tell because 12:43:47 EFTA00601285

133 1 it's been the subject of many photographic essays 2 that appeared in magazines and newspapers. Our home 3 was often photographed. So anybody would know what 4 the interior of it looked like. Just a simple 5 Google search would show you what the interior of 6 the house looked like. 7 Q. Tell us what it looked like, please. 12:44:07 8 A. Well, what specifically? 12:44:08 9 Q. Well -- 12:44:11 10 A. It had a couch when you walk in. 12:44:12 11 Q. Okay. What other furniture? 12:44:14 12 A. It had chairs. It had a dining room 12:44:15 13 table, all of which have been pictured in various 14 magazines and newspapers. 15 Q. Was there a desk in that room? 12:44:27 16 A. No. 12:44:31 17 Q. Bookshelves? 12:44:33 18 A. In the living room? 12:44:34 19 Q. In the rooms adjacent to the kitchen. 12:44:37 20 A. No, not to my recollection. 12:44:41 21 Why, does claim to have 12:44:47 22 been in my home? 23 Q. What kind of floor coverings are there on 12:44:50 24 the entry level? 25 A. Floor coverings? 12:44:57 EFTA00601286

134 1 Q. Yes. 12:44:59 2 A. In the entry level right as you walk in, 12:45:02 3 there are no floor coverings. There are -- 4 Q. Tile, wood? 12:45:09 5 A. Not a rug. Just a floor. 12:45:13 6 Q. What kind of floor? 12:45:16 7 A. I don't remember. 12:45:18 8 Q. What was its composition? 12:45:18 9 A. I don't remember. 12:45:20 10 Q. How about the living room, what was the 12:45:20 11 composition of the floor in the living room? 12 A. Cork, I think. Cork, yeah. 12:45:26 13 Q. How many times has Jeffrey Epstein been a 12:45:34 14 guest in that Cambridge, Massachusetts house? 15 A. Maybe -- 12:45:44 16 MR. SWEDER: When you say "guest," you 12:45:46 17 don't mean sleeping over? 18 A. He's never slept over. 12:45:51 19 BY MR. SCAROLA: 12:45:52 20 Q. I didn't say anything about sleeping over. 12:45:52 21 MR. SWEDER: I just want to make sure the 12:45:54 22 record is clear. 23 A. He has never slept over. Maybe three 12:45:55 24 times. Maybe. Maybe three times. That would be a 25 rough estimate. Not very many. EFTA00601287

135 1 MR. SCOTT: During the relevant timeframe. 12:46:12 2 A. During the relevant timeframe. 12:46:15 3 MR. SCOTT: 1999 to 2002. 12:46:16 4 A. 1999 to 2002. Oh, either -- maybe once. 12:46:17 5 Maybe once. Certainly not many times. 6 BY MR. SCAROLA: 12:46:24 7 Q. At least once? 12:46:27 8 A. I don't -- 12:46:29 9 Q. Maybe two, maybe three? 12:46:29 10 A. No, no, I have no recollection 12:46:31 11 MR. SCOTT: Okay. 12:46:32 12 A. I have no recollection of him being there 12:46:33 13 at all during that relevant time period. But 14 remembering that he had been in my house on a couple 15 of occasions, it's certainly possible during that 16 relevant time period he had been there once or 17 twice. 18 BY MR. SCAROLA: 12:46:46 19 Q. How many times -- excuse me. When he did 12:46:47 20 visit, with whom -- who accompanied him? 21 MR. SCOTT: Let me ask you a question. 12:46:55 22 Are we -- is this relevant timeframe or any 23 time? I'm just trying -- 24 MR. SCAROLA: Since we can't narrow it 12:46:59 25 down to the relevant timeframe, I want to know EFTA00601288

136 1 any time. 2 BY MR. SCAROLA: 12:47:02 3 Q. Any time that Jeffrey Epstein visited your 12:47:03 4 home, who was with him? 5 A. Normally Ghislaine Maxwell and 12:47:07 6 . And he may have had another assistant or 7 secretary or somebody. He usually traveled. 8 Usually he would fly in to Bedford 12:47:20 9 Airport, have a car take him -- usually go to his 10 office. He had an office in Harvard Square, and if 11 he came by my house, he came by my house with 12 whoever was his entourage at any given point in 13 time. 14 BY MR. SCAROLA: 12:47:41 15 Q. And that usually was? 12:47:42 16 A. , Maxwell and sometimes 12:47:43 17 another one or two people. 18 Q. How old was when she was part 12:47:49 19 of Jeffrey Epstein's entourage? 20 A. If I had to estimate, I would say younger 12:47:56 21 than 30 and older than 25. Somewhere between 25 and 22 30, probably closer to 30. 23 Q. You would describe her as a young woman? 12:48:06 24 A. I would describe her as a woman between 12:48:08 25 the ages of 25 and 30. EFTA00601289

137 1 Q. Does that in your mind fit the description 12:48:15 2 of a young woman? 3 A. I don't want to categorize a woman by her 12:48:19 4 age. It's a woman between 25 and 30. It's not a 5 teenager. It's not a middle-aged woman. It's a 6 woman between the ages of 25 and 30. 7 Q. What was role in Jeffrey 12:48:32 8 Epstein's entourage? 9 A. She would, to my knowledge, arrange 12:48:37 10 transportation, she would arrange meetings when 11 meetings were occurring. She worked, I think, at 12 the Harvard office where he would have meetings with 13 George Church, the man who developed the genome, 14 Larry Summers, the president of Harvard, Henry 15 Rosovsky, the provost, the former provost of 16 Harvard; Stephen Kosslyn, the chairman of the 17 psychology department at Harvard, a man who wrote 18 multiple intelligences, whose name is slipping my 19 mind now, but from the Ed School. 20 She would arrange some of those lunch 12:49:23 21 meetings where we would discuss serious issues, some 22 of us were asked to present. I presented on one or 23 two occasions and we were asked to critique and she 24 would take notes and arrange transportation and do 25 things of that kind. EFTA00601290

138 1 Q. How old was Ghislaine Maxwell? 12:49:40 2 A. Ghislaine, Ghislaine Maxwell. I would 12:49:45 3 estimate -- 4 MR. SCOTT: Your French isn't real high. 12:49:48 5 A. I would estimate that she was at the time 12:49:50 6 between 35 and 40. 7 BY MR. SCAROLA: 12:49:55 8 Q. And what was her role in Jeffrey Epstein's 12:49:55 9 entourage? 10 A. She was basically his major domo. She 12:49:58 11 arranged travel as well. And she would tell you 12 when you could meet with him, when to come over. 13 She would call me at my office and say, Jeffrey 14 would like to meet with you at 4:10, and then she 15 would call back and say, could you make it at 4:30? 16 I would say that Ghislaine was the senior 12:50:19 17 person organizing his kind of academic contacts and 18 was the junior person. They worked in 19 overlapping roles. 20 Q. Were there any other entourage members 12:50:34 21 that traveled with Jeffrey Epstein when he came to 22 your home? 23 A. I have no recollection of any of them ever 12:50:41 24 coming to my home. I don't remember. But if that's 25 who he traveled with. Sometimes he would travel -- EFTA00601291

139 1 he almost always had a regular girlfriend. And I 2 remember a few of them. One of them was a student 3 at the business school who's -- I may be merging two 4 of them. 5 One of them was a student at the business 12:51:03 6 school. Another, maybe the same one, was a wealthy 7 woman whose father owned banks in Great Britain. 8 Another was a woman from either the Czech Republic 9 or Slovakia who was probably between 20 and 25, 10 probably closer to 25. And he would travel with a 11 posse, basically, an entourage of -- of people. But 12 I never met some of the people who are in the 13 entourage. They were just there. 14 Q. They were there at the same time that you 12:51:38 15 were there and Jeffrey Epstein was there? 16 A. Well, they were -- 12:51:42 17 MR. SCOTT: Wait a minute. That's vague. 12:51:43 18 I mean, there in the house, there in 19 Massachusetts? 20 MR. SCAROLA: There wherever. 12:51:47 21 BY MR. SCAROLA: 12:51:47 22 Q. When you were in Jeffrey Epstein's 12:51:48 23 presence, Jeffrey Epstein usually had what you have 24 described as some regular girlfriend. 25 A. That's right. 12:51:58 EFTA00601292

140 1 Q. And you have described a variety of 12:51:59 2 different regular girlfriends who were with him, 3 correct? 4 A. Yes. 12:52:06 5 Q. Usually in the age range, you would 12:52:06 6 estimate, between 20 and 25; is that correct? 7 A. I would say -- 12:52:13 8 MR. SCOTT: Objection. That's not it. 12:52:14 9 A. I would say between 22 and 25 would be a 12:52:15 10 closer -- closer estimate. But 23, in that range. 11 There were none that I ever believed were 12:52:25 12 in any way teenagers. And they all performed tasks. 13 They were taking notes or they were arranging, 14 serving coffee or doing various things. And that's 15 the way Jeffrey would travel when he went to 16 academic meetings. 17 And these people were seen not only by me. 12:52:45 18 They were seen by Larry Summers, they were seen by 19 Church, they were seen by Marvin Minsky, they were 20 seen by some of the most eminent academics and 21 scholars in the world. There was no hint or 22 suggestion of anything sexual or improper in the 23 presence of these people. 24 BY MR. SCAROLA: 12:53:09 25 Q. Describe the motor vehicle that Jeffrey 12:53:09 EFTA00601293

141 1 Epstein used to travel from the airport to your home 2 on those occasions when you observed -- 3 A. I have no recollection. They were rented 12:53:20 4 cars. 5 Q. Limousines? 6 A. Limousines, yeah, yeah. 7 Q. And did you ever travel from your home 12:53:24 12:53:24 12:53:26 8 with Jeffrey Epstein in a limousine? 9 MR. SCOTT: Objection, form, overly broad. 12:53:35 10 A. Not during the relevant time period, no, 12:53:37 11 no. 12 BY MR. SCAROLA: 12:53:41 13 Q. So, you can state with certainty, based 12:53:43 14 upon your superb memory, that at no time between 15 1999 and 2002 did you ever travel from your home in 16 a limousine with Jeffrey Epstein? 17 A. I can't imagine any reason why I would 12:54:03 18 have. I did not fly in his plane during that period 19 of time, my records establish. And I would see no 20 reason why I would have. I don't have any 21 recollection whether I specifically drove with him 22 during that period of time. But I think I did not. 23 Because I did not have any reason. 24 Normally if I drove with him, it would be 12:54:25 25 to go to the airport to get on his plane. That was EFTA00601294

142 1 the only reason that I would have ever to go in a 2 limousine that I know of. 3 Q. What records establish that you were not 12:54:37 4 on Jeffrey Epstein's plane during what you have 5 described as the relevant time period? 6 A. No, you've described it as the relevant 12:54:46 7 time period. You said 2009 to 2000- 8 Q. No, sir. In the answer you just -- 12:54:51 9 A. -- 1999 -- 12:54:52 10 Q. -- gave, you used the phrase "relevant 12:54:53 11 time frame," time period. 12 A. Yeah, I was picking up on your terms 12:54:54 13 between 1999 and 2002. So can we agree that's the 14 relevant time period? 15 Q. You can tell me what -- what your response 12:55:03 16 is based on that you never traveled on Jeffrey 17 Epstein's airplane during the relevant time period, 18 whatever you consider that to be. 19 A. Okay. Number 1, my own calendars, which 12:55:15 20 have been provided to you. Number 2, my cell phone 21 records. Number 3, my wife's calendars. Number 4, 22 my teaching and other schedule. 23 Number 5, my own recollection. And number 12:55:33 24 6, as far as we know, the airplane manifests do not 25 have me on any airplanes during that time period. EFTA00601295

143 1 Q. What do you mean as far as -- 12:55:49 2 MR. SCOTT: We can take a break at some 12:55:50 3 point. It's about 1:00. 4 BY MR. SCAROLA: 12:55:53 5 Q. What do you mean as far as you know, the 12:55:54 6 airplane manifests 7 A. I've only seen some manifests and none of 12:55:57 8 them have me on any airplane during the relevant 9 time period. I have no idea whether there are any 10 other manifests. I wouldn't know. 11 Q. Well, have you seen manifests from the 12:56:07 12 period between 1999 and 2002? 13 A. I think I have, yes. I think I have, 12:56:12 14 yeah 15 Q. Okay. The entire period, covers the whole 12:56:14 16 period? 17 A. Yeah. I think I've been told by my 12:56:17 18 lawyers -- 19 MR. SIMPSON: Don't -- 12:56:20 20 A. Okay. I have been advised by people who 12:56:21 21 have seen the records that there is -- that I was 22 not on any of Jeffrey Epstein's planes during that 23 period of time. And that comports with my -- with 24 my memory. 25 EFTA00601296

144 1 BY MR. SCAROLA: 12:56:34 2 Q. Which people told you they saw airplane 12:56:34 3 manifests for the period between 1999 and 2002? 4 MR. SCOTT: If that involves lawyer 12:56:44 5 conversations and -- 6 A. It does involve lawyer conversations, yes. 12:56:46 7 MR. SCAROLA: He just waived it. 12:56:48 8 MR. SCOTT: I'm not taking that position. 12:56:50 9 BY MR. SCAROLA: 12:56:52 10 Q. Okay. So your position is that you are 12:56:53 11 not disclosing -- 12 A. I'm happy to disclose -- 12:56:54 13 Q. who told you 12:56:56 14 A. I'm happy to disclose -- 12:56:57 15 MR. SCOTT: No, no, I'm the lawyer here. 12:57:00 16 I'm telling him not to answer that question. 17 I'll discuss it at the lunch break and I'll get 18 back to you. And I would also like to know 19 what the relevancy of all those questions were 20 about the house. 21 THE WITNESS: I can figure it out. 12:57:10 22 BY MR. SCAROLA: 12:57:15 23 Q. Who -- did you personally see airplane 12:57:15 24 manifests during that period between 1999 and 2002? 25 A. My recollection is that I have looked at 12:57:23 EFTA00601297

145 1 plane manifests. I think they were prepared to be 2 shown to various people who I'm not allowed I'm 3 told not to talk about. 4 MR. SCAROLA: Okay. You've requested a 12:57:41 5 break. 6 MR. SCOTT: Take a lunch. 12:57:44 7 VIDEOGRAPHER: Going off the record. The 12:57:44 8 time is approximately 12:57 p.m. 9 (Recess was from 12:57 p.m. until 3:43 p.m.) 13:10:50 10 VIDEOGRAPHER: Going back on the record. 13:35:41 11 The time is approximately 3:43 p.m. 12 BY MR. SCAROLA: 15:43:41 13 Q. Mr. Dershowitz, did you author a book 15:43:43 14 called My Life in Court? 15 A. No. 15:43:47 16 Q. Do you recall having said the following: 15:43:49 17 "There's an old saying if you have the law on your 18 side, bang on the law. If you have the facts on 19 your side, bang on the facts. If you have neither, 20 bang on the table. I have never believed that, but 21 I do believe in a variation of that theme. If you 22 don't have the law or legal facts on your side, 23 argue your case in the Court of public opinion"? 24 Did you say that those things? 15:44:17 25 MR. SCOTT: Let me object to the form of 15:44:19 EFTA00601298

146 1 that because the statement does not give a 2 time, date, place or anything of his 3 recollections. 4 A. No, I remember saying that in following 15:44:25 5 context, I was accused of an unspeakable heinous 6 crime by lawyers who deliberately put it in a court 7 pleading that they believe would give them immunity. 8 They put it in a pleading which I was not a party. 9 I had no realistic legal opportunity to respond to 10 the lies and in that context, my only alternative 11 was to respond to the media when the media called 12 me, because obviously the media had been alerted to 13 these lies that were inserted in a judicial 14 proceeding, and I had no alternative but to respond 15 in the court of public opinion. 16 I prefer to respond in courts of law. In 15:45:16 17 fact, I've had cases in my career, including a 18 double capital case, where I made a deal with the 19 prosecutor initially that I would never speak to the 20 press if he would never speak to the press and we 21 honored that deal even when I won the case and my 22 clients were taken off death row. 23 So my strong preference would be to 15:45:34 24 respond in the court of law where I think I have 25 abilities and talents to respond. But when I have EFTA00601299

147 1 no alternative because of the way in which the 2 lawyers put the false allegations in a judicial 3 pleading hoping to get judicial immunity, yes, at 4 that point the appropriate response is in the court 5 of public opinion. 6 That's what Justice Blackmun said in a 15:46:00 7 concurring opinion in the Supreme Court, that the 8 duty of a lawyer does not stop at the courtroom door 9 but it continues on to the courtroom steps. And my 10 attitude is you fight the battle wherever the other 11 side starts it. 12 So, if the battles are started in the 15:46:16 13 court of public opinion, I have an obligation to 14 continue it in the court of public opinion. 15 MR. SCAROLA: Move to strike the 15:46:25 16 unresponsive answer. Let me try again and I'll 17 make it a little simpler for you. 18 BY MR. SCAROLA: 19 Q. Did you say if you don't have the law or 15:46:31 20 legal facts on your side, argue your case in the 21 court of public opinion? 22 A. I said that in the context of an 15:46:39 23 ability -- an inability to respond in the court of 24 law. In this case, I think I have -- I know I have 25 the facts on my side. In this case, it was unclear EFTA00601300

148 1 whether I had the law on my side at that time when 2 I, of course, learned that Professor Cassell made a 3 statement to ABC News that was not privileged and 4 when I also learned about statements made by both 5 Cassell and Edwards, I realized at that point I had 6 the law on my side, the facts on my side, and 7 morality. And that's the most important thing to 8 me, morality on my side. 9 BY MR. SCAROLA: 15:47:22 10 Q. You are quoted in an April 2007 edition of 15:47:24 11 the Daily Mail as having said "The financier," 12 referring to Jeffrey Epstein, "had paid for massages 13 but had not engaged in sex or erotic massages with 14 any minors." 15 Did you make that statement? 15:47:53 16 A. Can you show me? 15:47:54 17 MR. SCOTT: Would you like to see the 15:47:56 18 article? 19 THE WITNESS: Yes, of course I would. 15:47:58 20 MR. SCOTT: Can he see it, please? 15:48:04 21 BY MR. SCAROLA: 15:48:05 22 Q. Does that help to refresh your superb 15:48:06 23 memory? 24 MR. SCOTT: Objection. No -- he asked to 15:48:09 25 see it. There's no question pending. He's EFTA00601301

149 1 reviewing the document. 2 A. I have no recollection of having made that 15:48:16 3 statement, nor do I know whether it's an accurate 4 rendition. I note that it's not in quotation marks. 5 BY MR. SCAROLA: 15:48:24 6 Q. So you can't remember one way or another 15:48:25 7 whether you said that; is that correct? 8 A. I can't remember my exact words. I was 15:48:28 9 I was defending Jeffrey Epstein both in the court of 10 law and in the court of public opinion. 11 Q. So, as far as Jeffrey Epstein was 15:48:37 12 concerned, you decided to resort to the court of 13 public opinion -- 14 A. Because -- 15:48:45 15 Q. -- correct? 15:48:45 16 A. Because the press had called me because 15:48:46 17 Epstein's opponents had gone to the press and tried 18 to make the case against him in the press. As I 19 said previously, and I've stated this over and over 20 again, I will fight for my client in any forum in 21 which the fight is commenced by the other side. If 22 the fight is limited to the court, I much prefer to 23 fight in the court. 24 No defendant benefits from having his case 15:49:09 25 in the newspapers. Every defendant I know and every EFTA00601302

150 1 defense lawyer I know, and I certainly teach this to 2 my students, try to keep the case out of the press, 3 try to keep the press as far away from the case as 4 possible. But if the press is covering the opposing 5 point of view, you have an obligation to respond in 6 whatever forum the -- the prosecution of your 7 clients or the persecution of your clients is taking 8 place. That's been a principle that I've applied 9 throughout my professional career. 10 Q. And you have an obligation to respond 15:49:42 11 truthfully when you make public statements? 12 A. Absolutely, right. 15:49:47 13 Q. The Code of Professional Responsibility of 15:49:48 14 the Bar of the State of Massachusetts requires you 15 to be truthful in making statements to third 16 parties, correct? 17 A. I'm fully aware of the Code of 15:49:58 18 Professional Responsibility. I've always complied 19 with it. I've never violated it, and I wish I could 20 say the same for your clients, but I can't. 21 Q. As you sit here today, knowing that more 15:50:07 22 than 30 underage women have come forward to report 23 that your friend, Jeffrey Epstein, paid them for sex 24 and that he pled guilty to procuring underage girls 25 for prostitution, and that he paid very large sums EFTA00601303

151 1 of money to settle their civil claims against him, 2 do you still insist that he had not engaged in sex 3 or erotic massages with any minors? 4 A. As I told you 15:50:45 5 MR. WEINBERG: I would like to register an 15:50:46 6 objection -- 7 MR. SCOTT: Wait a minute. 15:50:46 8 MR. WEINBERG: -- to the extent that your 15:50:46 9 opinion -- 10 THE COURT REPORTER: I'm sorry, I can't 15:50:46 11 hear the gentleman. 12 MR. SCAROLA: We're going to -- we're 15:50:52 13 going to object to more than one lawyer -- 14 MR. SCOTT: He's representing Epstein, 15:50:57 15 just like she represents Boies. 16 MR. SCAROLA: That's fine. 15:51:01 17 MR. SCOTT: This is -- this is Epstein's 15:51:02 18 lawyer. And they have attorney-client relation 19 there, so -- 20 MR. SCAROLA: Yeah, is there some 15:51:12 21 volume -- 22 THE WITNESS: Go ahead, Marty. 15:51:13 23 MR. WEINBERG: The -- the objection is to 15:51:16 24 the extent the question requires you to rely on 25 information you learned as a result of your EFTA00601304

152 1 attorney-client communications, representation 2 of Epstein, work product, I object. 3 BY MR. SCAROLA: 15:51:31 4 Q. Do you understand the question? 15:51:32 5 A. I understand the question and I understand 15:51:33 6 the objection. 7 Q. Yes, sir. And are you going to answer the 15:51:36 8 question? 9 THE WITNESS: Marty, you're the lawyer for 15:51:38 10 my client. Do you -- do you order me to answer 11 the question or not? 12 MR. WEINBERG: The client does not waive 15:51:46 13 any of the privileges; and, again, to the 14 extent you're required to rely on what you 15 learned as a result of your professional legal 16 relationship with Epstein, your representation 17 of him in any of -- any of his legal cases, I 18 object and would instruct you to the extent you 19 will accept an instruction from your client's 20 lawyer not to answer. 21 BY MR. SCAROLA: 15:52:11 22 Q. Mr. Dershowitz, you know -- I assume 15:52:12 23 you're going to follow the instruction, correct? 24 MR. SCOTT: Yes, you're going to follow 15:52:15 25 the instruction. EFTA00601305

153 1 A. I am going to follow the instruction. I 15:52:16 2 have no choice. He's my client. 3 BY MR. SCAROLA: 15:52:19 4 Q. I assume you know from sources entirely 15:52:20 5 independent of anything that Jeffrey Epstein told 6 you, from sources entirely independent of attorney 7 work product privileged information, that Jeffrey 8 Epstein is guilty of being a serial child molester, 9 right? 10 A. Absolutely not. Absolutely not. 15:52:37 11 Q. You don't know independent of those 15:52:39 12 sources? 13 A. Not only -- no, I don't know that 15:52:41 14 independent -- 15 Q. Okay. Thank you. 15:52:43 16 A. -- of those sources. Of course not. 15:52:43 17 Q. You know that he pled guilty to sexual 15:52:45 18 abuse of minors, correct? 19 A. Could you tell me exactly what he pleaded 15:52:54 20 guilty to so I can answer that question? 21 Q. Well, do you know? You represented him 15:52:58 22 during the period of time that he was under -- that 23 he was -- that he was under criminal charges, didn't 24 you? 25 MR. SCOTT: So you're withdrawing the 15:53:06 EFTA00601306

154 1 prior question; you're now asking this 2 question? Okay. 3 MR. SCAROLA: That's correct, I'm 15:53:09 4 asking -- 5 A. So I represented him 15:53:10 6 MR. SCAROLA: -- this question. 15:53:10 7 A. I represented him first in Palm Beach 15:53:11 8 County, and at that point, he had been prepared to 9 plead guilty to, I think, one count -- 10 MR. WEINBERG: Alan, I'm sorry. This is 15:53:24 11 again, going right into the work that you did 12 for him as his lawyer and I instruct you not to 13 answer. 14 MR. SCOTT: That's it then, follow his -- 15:53:32 15 as your attorney, I'm telling you to follow the 16 lawyer's advice. 17 THE WITNESS: Uh-huh. 15:53:36 18 BY MR. SCAROLA: 15:53:37 19 Q. You are aware that on October 20, 2005, 15:53:37 20 the Palm Beach police department executed a search 21 warrant on Jeffrey Epstein's Palm Beach mansion, 22 correct? 23 A. I'm not aware of that, no. 15:53:45 24 Q. You didn't know that? 15:53:46 25 A. I don't know that as I stand here today 15:53:48 EFTA00601307

155 1 what date or when -- 2 Q. Do you know that a search warrant was 15:53:52 3 executed? 4 A. I recall -- 15:53:54 5 MR. WEINBERG: Again, the objection is if 15:53:55 6 you only know it as a result of your legal 7 representation of Mr. Epstein, I object to your 8 answering on that basis. If you know it from 9 independent sources, then I have no objection. 10 A. I do not know it from independent sources. 15:54:08 11 BY MR. SCAROLA: 15:54:10 12 Q. You know it from having read a very 15:54:11 13 lengthy Palm Beach police department investigative 14 report, don't you? 15 MR. SCOTT: Objection. 15:54:19 16 MR. WEINBERG: And I object If you read 15:54:20 17 it in the context of providing legal 18 representation to Jeffrey Epstein, it's 19 attorney-client, it's work product, and it's 20 the same objection. 21 THE WITNESS: Let me put on the record, 15:54:31 22 too, that I'm happy to answer any of these 23 questions if I were permitted to do so because 24 they're all exculpatory of me, but I must obey 25 my lawyer -- the lawyer's instructions. EFTA00601308

156 1 MR. SCAROLA: And it is my suggestion that 15:54:43 2 the statement that the answers would be 3 exculpatory is a waiver of any privilege that 4 might attach, particularly with regard to work 5 product, which is not Jeffrey Epstein's 6 privilege, but if it exists at all, is Alan 7 Dershowitz's privilege. 8 MR. SCOTT: We obviously don't agree with 15:55:01 9 that. 10 BY MR. SCAROLA: 15:55:03 11 Q. Do you agree, Mr. Dershowitz, that 15:55:04 12 deciding the issues in this case will depend on 13 evaluating not only credibility 14 but your credibility as well? 15 MR. SCOTT: Objection, legal conclusion, 15:55:14 16 not relevant here. 17 A. I think that I can prove my complete 15:55:17 18 innocence and the fact that -- that 19 made up the story out of whole cloth without my 20 credibility being at issue, but I'm perfectly happy 21 to put my credibility at issue because I am telling 22 the blue absolute truth about everything regarding 23 • 24 BY MR. SCAROLA: 15:55:39 25 Q. One way to evaluate credibility is to 15:55:40 EFTA00601309

157 1 compare an individual's statements with available 2 documentary evidence, correct? 3 A. That's too broad a question. Depending on 15:55:48 4 what the documentary evidence could be. Documentary 5 could be lies. Documents contain lies and oral 6 statements contain truth. So, no, I don't think 7 that's a particularly good way. It depends on the 8 nature of the document. 9 For example, videotape would be very good. 15:56:04 10 If you had a videotape that in some way supported 11 ' statements and it undercut what I 12 said, that would be fine. That's why from day one 13 I've asked to have if there are any videotape shown 14 or any photographs because I know what happened. I 15 know that I never had any contact, any sexual 16 contact, any improper contact with 17 And I know, therefore, that there cannot 15:56:27 18 be any evidence that contradicts that because you 19 can't simply make up facts. So I am telling you the 20 absolute truth. 21 Q. You also know that all of the videotapes 15:56:37 22 that were taken through surveillance cameras 23 throughout Jeffrey Epstein's home were destroyed, 24 don't you? 25 A. Of course I don't know that. 15:56:47 EFTA00601310

158 1 Q. You don't know? 15:56:48 2 A. Of course not. 15:56:49 3 Q. So you didn't read the police reports 15:56:50 4 then? 5 MR. SCOTT: Objection. Mr. Epstein, do 15:56:52 6 you want him to answer that question? 7 MR. SIMPSON: Mr. Weinberg. 15:56:59 8 MR. SCOTT: Mr. Weinberg? 15:57:00 9 MR. WEINBERG: It's the same objection. 15:57:00 10 If you learned it as a result of the -- or in 11 the context of legal representation and while 12 providing legal counsel to Jeffrey Epstein, I 13 object. 14 MR. SCOTT: Based on this lawyer's 15:57:12 15 position, your client's lawyer's position, if 16 any of your answers involve that what he's 17 saying, I don't want you to answer them, okay? 18 THE WITNESS: The only thing I can say 15:57:21 19 that doesn't -- 20 MR. SIMPSON: Alan -- 15:57:23 21 MR. SCOTT: There's no question. 15:57:23 22 A. That doesn't involve. 15:57:24 23 MR. SCOTT: There's no question. 15:57:25 24 THE WITNESS: Oh, there's no question. 15:57:26 25 Sorry. EFTA00601311

159 1 BY MR. SCAROLA: 15:57:28 2 Q. You have stated publicly repeatedly that 15:57:29 3 the airplane manifests will exonerate you, correct? 4 A. I have stated publicly that the airplane 15:57:35 5 manifest, the one that I have seen, do not show me 6 on any of Jeffrey Epstein's airplanes in the 7 relevant period of time, which I define as the 8 summer of 1999 through the summer of 2002, number 1. 9 Number 2, that none of the airplane 15:57:52 10 manifests will show me on the same plane with 11 • 12 And 3, that none of the manifests will 15:58:01 13 show me on an airplane with Jeffrey Epstein and any 14 underage girls that were at least visible in the 15 passenger part of the airplane. 16 Q. Well, that raises an interesting point, 15:58:13 17 Mr. Dershowitz. Tell us about the interior -- 18 A. Why is it interesting? 15:58:16 19 Q. -- of that plane. 15:58:18 20 THE COURT REPORTER: I'm sorry, I didn't 15:58:18 21 hear your question. 22 BY MR. SCAROLA: 15:58:18 23 Q. That raises an interesting point. Tell us 15:58:20 24 about that the interior of that plane. 25 A. My recollection is the plane was a 15:58:24 EFTA00601312

160 1 Gulfstream IV. That it had a cabin that seated 2 approximately one, two, three, four -- maybe ten -- 3 ten people. It had mostly seats -- I used to sit in 4 the seat facing backward, that's the way I prefer to 5 fly. 6 And in the back of the plane there was a 15:58:52 7 toilet, a place to serve food. And a couch that 8 served as a seat with seat belts for maybe two or 9 three additional people. But I never saw the 10 plane -- the only time I ever saw the plane filled 11 to capacity was when I went down to watch a launch 12 of a satellite -- 13 Q. Does that have -- 15:59:19 14 A. -- to outer space. 15:59:20 15 Q. anything to do with the configuration 15:59:20 16 of the interior of the plane? 17 A. Yes. Yes, I'm telling you that I've 15:59:25 18 mostly seen it only with four or five people. The 19 only time I've seen the couch 20 Q. Did I ask you how many people 15:59:29 21 MR. SCOTT: Well, you're interrupting -- 15:59:30 22 BY MR. SCAROLA: 15:59:31 23 Q. -- were in the plane at the time I asked 15:59:32 24 you what the configuration of the cabin was, 25 Mr. Dershowitz? EFTA00601313

161 1 A. I'm explaining -- 15:59:35 2 Q. Is that part of the question that I 15:59:35 3 asked -- 4 A. I'm explaining the couch. 15:59:37 5 Q. or is that your effort to make speeches 15:59:38 6 in an effort to consume the limited amount of time 7 that we have? 8 MR. SCOTT: I would object to that 15:59:44 9 characterization. 10 A. I wanted to start at -- I wanted to start 15:59:44 11 at 12:00 -- at 1:30 today. 12 MR. SCOTT: And the speech. 15:59:48 13 MR. SIMPSON: Alan, Alan. 15:59:48 14 A. All the delays have been caused by you, 15:59:49 15 not me. And I'm ready to go to 5:30, but you're 16 quitting at 5 -- or 4:30. 17 BY MR. SCAROLA: 15:59:55 18 Q. Yes, sir, I have -- 15:59:55 19 A. So don't blame any delays on me, sir. 15:59:56 20 Q. -- a commitment -- I have a commitment to 15:59:58 21 chair an -- 22 A. Don't we all. 15:59:59 23 Q. -- Easter Seals fundraiser. 15:59:59 24 A. We all have commitments. 16:00:00 25 Q. You've known -- 16:00:02 EFTA00601314

162 1 MR. SCOTT: Timeout. Timeout. Let's 16:00:02 2 everybody -- 3 BY MR. SCAROLA: 16:00:03 4 Q. -- that for three days. 16:00:03 5 MR. SCOTT: Everybody cool down. 16:00:05 6 Everybody cool down. It's late in the day. 7 That includes Mr. Scarola, my client. Let's do 8 question and answer. 9 BY MR. SCAROLA: 16:00:14 10 Q. New question -- 16:00:15 11 MR. SCOTT: Here we go, new question. 16:00:15 12 BY MR. SCAROLA: 16:00:15 13 Q. -- did you see a bed in the plane? 16:00:15 14 A. I never saw a bed in the plane. As far as 16:00:16 15 I know, there was no bed in the plane. And that's 16 what I was trying to explain. That the only time 17 I've seen that couch used is when two or three 18 people were sitting in it when we went down to watch 19 the launch of the satellite because that was the 20 only time I saw the plane filled. 21 Other than that, it was a plain, ordinary 16:00:36 22 couch that was never used by anybody during the 23 flights. We were all sitting in our seats. I do 24 not know for a fact that that couch becomes a bed. 25 I never saw it as a bed. And the answer is EFTA00601315

163 1 categorically no. 2 Q. Well, the question was: Is there a bed on 16:00:57 3 the plane? The answer to that question is not a 4 categorical no; the answer to that question is you 5 don't know; is that right? 6 A. The answer to that question is there is a 16:01:05 7 couch on the plane like it is on all -- as far as I 8 know, all Gulfstream IVs. I have no idea whether or 9 not that couch becomes a bed. 10 Q. You told the American lawyer on 16:01:15 11 January 15, 2015 a statement that you have repeated 12 on multiple occasions: "I've been married to the 13 same woman for 28 years. She goes with me 14 everywhere." 15 Do you acknowledge making that statement? 16:01:29 16 A. Yes. My wife goes with me everywhere 16:01:30 17 today. These days, now that our daughter is grown 18 up and went to high school and college, she travels 19 with me everywhere. It's a rare, rare occasion when 20 my wife doesn't travel with me. In fact, I have a 21 condition of my speakings engagements that the 22 speaking engagements have to pay for my wife to come 23 with me. 24 I hate traveling alone. I almost never do 16:01:51 25 it unless there is an absolutely essential reason EFTA00601316

164 1 for Carolyn to be somewhere else, such as taking 2 care of her 96-year-old mother. But it is true, I 3 travel with my wife. 4 Q. In fact, the airplane manifests that have 16:02:07 5 been produced reflect your having traveled on 6 Jeffrey Epstein's airplane on ten separate occasions 7 and on none of those occasions -- 8 A. Is that testimony, sir? 16:02:22 9 Q. On none of those occasions -- 16:02:23 10 MR. SCOTT: Wait a minute. 16:02:25 11 BY MR. SCAROLA: 16:02:25 12 Q. is your wife reflected as having been a 16:02:26 13 passenger at the same time that you are were on 14 Jeffrey Epstein's airplane, right? 15 MR. SCOTT: Object to the form. There's 16:02:32 16 no timeframe or anything of that nature. If 17 you can answer 18 BY MR. SCAROLA: 16:02:35 19 Q. All of the manifests that have been 16:02:35 20 produced in this litigation, the ones that you say 21 corroborate your testimony and exonerate you, 22 demonstrate that you never flew on Jeffrey Epstein's 23 plane in the company of your wife, correct? 24 A. No. That's not true. I flew in the 16:02:50 25 company of my wife and my daughter from Charleston, EFTA00601317

165 1 South Carolina to Guadalupe -- 2 Q. I'm asking about what the manifests show, 16:03:00 3 sir -- 4 A. I'm telling you what 16:03:02 5 Q. -- the ones that you say exonerate you. 16:03:03 6 A. Well, I said that -- 16:03:05 7 Q. Is there a manifest that shows that you 16:03:06 8 and your wife were on Jeffrey Epstein's plane at the 9 same time together? 10 MR. SCOTT: Let me object to the -- 16:03:11 11 A. I don't know that. 16:03:13 12 MR. SCOTT: -- argumentative nature and 16:03:13 13 compound nature. He's trying to answer your 14 questions. 15 A. Let me go through each of the times 16:03:18 16 MR. SCOTT: There's nothing -- 16:03:19 17 THE WITNESS: Okay. Okay. 16:03:19 18 MR. SCOTT: There's nothing pending. Go 16:03:20 19 ahead. 20 BY MR. SCAROLA: 16:03:21 21 Q. Is there a manifest that shows that your 16:03:21 22 wife ever accompanied you on a flight on Jeffrey 23 Epstein's private airplane? 24 MR. SCOTT: Let me object again. There's 16:03:30 25 no reference to the timeframe or the relevant EFTA00601318

166 1 timeframe -- 2 MR. SCAROLA: Any time ever. 16:03:34 3 A. My wife accompanied me on two occasions, 16:03:35 4 my nephew -- 5 BY MR. SCAROLA: 16:03:39 6 Q. Is there a manifest -- 16:03:39 7 MR. SCOTT: You're cutting him off, 16:03:40 8 Counsel. 9 A. Let me finish. 16:03:41 10 MR. SCAROLA: He's not answering my 16:03:41 11 question. 12 MR. SCOTT: Yes, he is answering your 16:03:43 13 question. 14 A. My nephew accompanied me on one occasion. 16:03:45 15 My research assistant, Mitch Webber, accompanied me 16 on one occasion. My son or grandson, I'm not sure 17 which, accompanied me on one occasion. 18 And the occasions that I flew on Jeffrey 16:04:04 19 Epstein's plane were almost always business 20 occasions during a time when my daughter, Ella, was 21 in elementary school, if we're talking about the 22 relevant period of time. And during that period of 23 time, on occasion my wife did not fly with me. 24 BY MR. SCAROLA: 16:04:24 25 Q. Is there -- 16:04:24 EFTA00601319

167 1 A. But let me emphasize -- let me emphasize 16:04:25 2 that the manifests that do exculp me, do not show me 3 flying with , they do not show me 4 flying with any young women. 5 They know that on every trip I took, there 16:04:35 6 was a business reason for it, there were other 7 people on the plane, and it is inconceivable that 8 during any of those periods of time, the lies that 9 told about me could have been true. 10 Q. So it's your contention that no manifests 16:04:49 11 show you traveling outside the company of your wife; 12 is that correct? 13 A. Said that again, no manifest -- 16:04:58 14 Q. No manifest shows you traveling outside 16:04:59 15 the company of your wife? 16 A. I'm confused. That's a double, triple 16:05:02 17 negative. 18 MR. SCOTT: Do you understand the 16:05:07 19 question? 20 THE WITNESS: I don't, no. 16:05:07 21 MR. SCOTT: Rephrase it. 16:05:09 22 BY MR. SCAROLA: 16:05:09 23 Q. There is not a single manifest of the ten 16:05:10 24 that shows you as a passenger on Jeffrey Epstein's 25 plane that shows your wife there at the same time, EFTA00601320

168 1 correct? 2 A. I am not aware that there are ten 16:05:18 3 manifests I would be happy to look at the 4 manifests I have explained 5 Q. Unfortunately -- 16:05:24 6 A. -- each of the times -- 16:05:24 7 Q. -- we won't have time to do that this 16:05:25 8 afternoon -- 9 A. -- I've been -- 16:05:27 10 Q. -- but we will have time to do that 16:05:27 11 eventually. 12 A. We will -- I welcome that time, because I 16:05:29 13 can give complete context to every single trip I 14 took. And if you're trying to convey the impression 15 that there was any occasion on which I had any 16 improper conduct while I was on that airplane, that 17 is a categorical lie. 18 Q. What I am trying to do, sir, is to test 16:05:45 19 the veracity of your public assertions that you have 20 never traveled outside the presence of your wife. 21 A. That is a lie. 16:05:57 22 Q. That is what I'm trying to do. 16:05:57 23 A. That is a lie, sir, a categorical lie. I 16:05:57 24 challenge you to find any statement where I said I 25 have never traveled outside the presence of my wife. EFTA00601321

169 1 Q. Well, how about this -- 16:06:08 2 A. Sir, find me that statement. 16:06:09 3 Q. -- do you -- do you remember having -- 16:06:10 4 having stated publicly on multiple occasions that 5 you never received a massage -- 6 A. No. 16:06:17 7 Q. -- from Jeffrey Epstein? 16:06:18 8 MR. SCOTT: Unless you can show them and 16:06:20 9 characterize them by date and time, you just 10 can't say here -- it's improper impeachment -- 11 that you've done this ten times. It's just 12 improper completely. 13 BY MR. SCAROLA: 16:06:28 14 Q. Can you answer the question -- 16:06:29 15 MR. SCOTT: And it's overly broad. 16:06:29 16 BY MR. SCAROLA: 16:06:30 17 Q. -- do you have any recollection of saying 16:06:30 18 that you never received a massage? 19 A. I did receive a massage. 16:06:32 20 Q. Do you have any recollection 16:06:34 21 A. I have no recollection -- 16:06:35 22 Q. -- of making that public statement that 16:06:36 23 you never received a massage? 24 A. I can't imagine me saying that. If I said 16:06:39 25 it, I was mistaken. I had one massage, to my EFTA00601322

170 1 recollection. 2 Q. Okay. Tell us about where that occurred. 16:06:43 3 A. That occurred in my bedroom of Jeffrey 16:06:45 4 Epstein's home in Palm Beach. I was asked whether 5 I -- Palm Beach. I was asked whether I wanted a 6 massage. I had been asked repeatedly whether I 7 wanted a massage and I had said no. Then I was told 8 that they had a masseuse coming from Miami who was a 9 specialist of some kind, she was very good, she was 10 Russian, and she worked, I think, in the Russian 11 baths or something like that, and I agreed to have a 12 massage. 13 I regretted it. She massaged me in a very 16:07:25 14 tough and rough way. And she wanted to put her 15 knees on my shoulder and I said no. I immediately 16 called my wife when the massage was over and I told 17 her about the bad experience I had. And I said to 18 her, see, I really don't like massages. But my wife 19 likes massages. And she has had -- she has massages 20 frequently. 21 Q. This massage occurred in your bedroom in 16:07:55 22 Jeffrey Epstein's house; is that correct? 23 A. Not in my bedroom, in the bedroom that I 16:07:59 24 had been assigned, which was a guest bedroom. The 25 door was open. The -- a massage table was brought EFTA00601323

171 1 in. I kept my undergarments on. And I was massaged 2 maybe for 20 minutes or 25 minutes. And then and 3 then she left and I had an unpleasant experience and 4 I called my wife and I told her about it. 5 Q. Was the bedroom to which you were 16:08:28 6 assigned, which you previously referred to as your 7 bedroom -- 8 A. No, no. I said "my bedroom" in the sense 16:08:34 9 that I was in it. 10 Q. Was the bedroom to which you were assigned 16:08:38 11 in the private section of the residence? 12 MR. SCOTT: Do you understand the 16:08:46 13 question? 14 A. Yeah, let me explain exactly. This 16:08:47 15 requires a long answer. 16 There -- when you walk into Jeffrey 16:08:52 17 Epstein's house, there are two areas. If you walk 18 up the left side of the stairway, there are guest 19 bedrooms, three or four guest bedrooms. Those were 20 assigned to people like Senator George Mitchell, 21 Ehud Barak, prominent guests who would stay in his 22 house. Each one had its own bathroom and its own 23 bed. I stayed there with my wife for a period of 24 time. 25 But then there was another area of the 16:09:26 EFTA00601324

172 1 house, which I have never been in, ever, and which 2 nobody was allowed basically into, which was Jeffrey 3 Epstein's part of the house, which contained his 4 bedroom and whatever other rooms. I've read about 5 them, but I've never seen them. So it was in the 6 guest area of the house over the kitchen. 7 BY MR. SCAROLA: 16:09:45 8 Q. Who told you no one was allowed in that 16:09:47 9 area of the house? 10 A. I was told by the people that that was 16:09:50 11 off -- off limits, that that was Jeffrey's -- 12 Q. Which people? 16:09:54 13 A. Ghislaine, , that that 16:09:56 14 was Jeffrey's area of the house and that the guests 15 were limited to the public areas of the house and 16 the -- and I think that's common in many houses when 17 you go and stay at somebody's house, you don't go 18 into their bathrooms and their bedrooms. 19 Q. And it's common for people to tell you, 16:10:11 20 you're not allowed in this area of the house? 21 A. People -- people -- guests are not 16:10:15 22 supposed to go to that area of the house. 23 Q. No, sir. That's my question. Is it 16:10:19 24 common for you to be told -- 25 A. Yes. 16:10:22 EFTA00601325

173 1 Q. -- when you enter somebody's house, you're 16:10:22 2 not allowed to go into this portion of the house? 3 A. Oh, yes. I just recently went to a -- a 16:10:26 4 breakfast at somebody's house after Yom Kippur and I 5 wanted to show friends of mine the art that was in 6 the house and I started walking down the house and 7 the waiter said, oh, I'm sorry, you're not allowed 8 in -- in that part of the house, that's the private 9 residence. And so I had to turn around and show my 10 friends the art that was in the public area, not the 11 private area -- 12 Q. Jeffrey Epstein's art consisted of 16:10:54 13 photographs of young naked girls all over the house, 14 right? 15 A. Are you testifying? That's false. I 16:11:01 16 never saw any such thing. Ever. Never saw a 17 picture, with one exception, of a nude. The one 18 exception was a sepia print of Rodin's model that 19 appeared on one of his desks. 20 But in all the times I was at Jeffrey 16:11:23 21 Epstein's house in Palm Beach, the one time I was in 22 his house in -- on the island, certainly the one 23 time in -- in the ranch because there was nothing 24 there, it was just a construction site, I never saw 25 a picture -- or in his house in New York, I never EFTA00601326

174 1 saw a picture of a naked woman, ever. 2 Q. The notice for deposition with which you 16:11:45 3 were served both initially a few months ago and for 4 today's deposition is a notice of deposition duces 5 tecum. Could we please have the documents that 6 you -- 7 MR. SCOTT: We have a disk. I'll hand it 16:12:01 8 to you at the end of the depo with everything 9 that's responsive 10 MR. SCAROLA: I would like it now, please. 16:12:04 11 MR. SCOTT: Let the record reflect I'm 16:12:13 12 handing the disk. 13 MR. SCAROLA: Thank you. 16:12:16 14 MR. SIMPSON: Just for the record, it's a 16:12:17 15 disk of all the documents that have been 16 produced in the case subject to the objections 17 and privilege assertions that have been made in 18 the case. 19 MR. SCAROLA: All right. And so that the 16:12:25 20 record is clear, and hopefully you will be able 21 to make these arrangements by tomorrow, one of 22 the things that we want are the original of the 23 handwritten documents so that we have an 24 opportunity to examine those. 25 MR. SCOTT: I'll talk to him -- 16:12:40 EFTA00601327

175 1 MR. SCAROLA: Calendars. 16:12:41 2 MR. SCOTT: -- whether we comply or not. 16:12:43 3 We'll discuss it off the record. 4 MR. SCAROLA: The flight logs, anything 16:12:44 5 that's in handwritten form. 6 And we will reconvene tomorrow. What time 16:12:50 7 would you like to start? 8 MR. SCOTT: 9:30. 16:12:53 9 THE WITNESS: The earlier the better. 16:12:54 10 9:00. 11 MR. SCAROLA: 9:00? 16:12:55 12 MR. SCOTT: 9:00, good. 16:12:56 13 MR. SCAROLA: 8:00, want to go to 8:00? 16:12:57 14 MR. SCOTT: No, 9:00 is fine. 16:12:59 15 MR. SCAROLA: Okay. Thank you. 16:13:00 16 VIDEOGRAPHER: Going off the record. The 16:13:00 17 time is approximately 4:13 p.m. 18 (The proceedings ADJOURNED at 4:13 p.m., 19 and will continue in Volume 2.) 20 21 22 23 24 25 EFTA00601328

176 CERTIFICATE OF OATH STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF BROWARD I, the undersigned authority, certify that ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ personally appeared before me and was duly sworn on the 15th day of October, 2015. Signed this 15th day of October, 2015. KIMBERLY FONTALVO, RPR, FPR, CLR Notary Public, State of Florida My Commission No. EE 161994 Expires: 2/01/16 EFTA00601329

177 CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF BROWARD I, KIMBERLY FONTALVO, Registered Professional Reporter, do hereby certify that I was authorized to and did stenographically report the foregoing videotape deposition of ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ; pages 1 through 170; that a review of the transcript was requested; and that the transcript is a true record of my stenographic notes. I FURTHER CERTIFY that I am not a relative, employee, attorney, or counsel of any of the parties, nor am I a relative or employee of any of the parties' attorneys or counsel connected with the action, nor am I financially interested in the action. Dated this 15th day of October, 2015. KIMBERLY FONTALVO, RPR, FPR, CLR EFTA00601330

178 October 15, 2015 Re: Bradley Edwards, etc. v. Alan M. Dershowitz Please take notice that on the 15th day of October, 2015, you gave your deposition in the above cause. At that time, you did not waive your signature. The above-addressed attorney has ordered a copy of this transcript and will make arrangements with you to read their copy. Please execute the Errata Sheet, which can be found at the back of the transcript, and have it returned to us for distribution to all parties. If you do not read and sign the deposition within a reasonable amount of time, the original, which has already been forwarded to the ordering attorney, may be filed with the Clerk of the Court. If you wish to waive your signature now, please sign your name in the blank at the bottom of this letter and return to the address listed below. Very truly yours, KIMBERLY FONTALVO, RPR, FPR, CLR Phipps Reporting, Inc. 1615 Forum Place, Suite 500 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 I do hereby waive my signature. ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ EFTA00601331

179 ERRATA SHEET DO NOT WRITE ON TRANSCRIPT - ENTER CHANGES HERE In Re: BRADLEY EDWARDS, ETC. V. ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ October 15, 2015 PAGE LINE CHANGE REASON Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have read the foregoing document and that the facts stated in it are true. Date ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ EFTA00601332