Oo O DN OO FF WwW NY =| NO RO PO PNP NM NO | S| S| HS SF S| S| S| S| S| non BP WO NO -|- ODO OO WDN OO OT BP WO NYO — 101 So one of them was a Ghislane Maxwell. I will just call her Glen Maxwell. I think that's kind of the nickname I understand she goes by. Glen Maxwell -- remember, she is the one, you know, I think the record is clear, in litigation that, you know, allegation has been made that she was the one that -- that brought Virginia Roberts into the -- into the sex trafficking, and was heavily involved with, you know, in all the -- not all the flights, but on many of the flights with Jeffrey Epstein where this seemed to be going on and was very close to Epstein, staying at the mansion frequently. And so she would, obviously, be I guess if you have Epstein at the top of the -- you know, the kingpin of the operation, Maxwell would be, you know, a close second or certainly at the higher echelon. So, obviously, Someone who would have very significant information about, you know, the sex trafficking, who were the other people that -- the girls were being trafficked to, what kind of abuse was going on, you know, what kind of sex toys were being used to abuse them, because I think it was in her room or adjacent to her room that many of these devices were located, and so she would have had very significant information to provide. ROUGH DRAFT ONLY HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_021924

Oo O DN OO FF WwW NY =| NO RO PO PNP NM NO | S| S| HS SF S| S| S| S| S| non BP WO NO -|- ODO OO WDN OO OT BP WO NYO — 102 And so in connection with the civil cases that some of the girls had filed against Mr. Epstein, her deposition was set by my co-counsel, Mr. Edwards, and there was some haggling over a confidentiality agreement, you know, and that had all been worked out and then she was set for a deposition and finally agreed, you know, to deposition. And just shortly, I think a couple of days before that deposition, she canceled. Well, she didn't cancel, her -- her attorney called to cancel the deposition, and represented that Miss Maxwell was outside the United States of America and had no plans to return back to the United States. And so, at that point, the deposition was -- was not able to go forward. But it turned out that she had not left the United States for an extended period of time. She was spotted later at a wedding of a prominent person in New York. And so that was Maxwell fitting into this pattern, you know, Epstein was being, you know, Palm Beach Police Department being told by Dershowitz that Epstein will answer your questions, and then not getting information. Maxwell evading the deposition. Jean Luc Brunel “ (ph) was another person who seemed to be very much involved in trafficking the girls and it was the same situation. A deposition was set to try to get ROUGH DRAFT ONLY HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_021925

Oo O DN OO FF WwW NY =| NO RO PO PNP NM NO | S| S| HS SF S| S| S| S| S| non BP WO NO -|- ODO OO WDN OO OT BP WO NYO — 103 answers, you Know, who is involved, which girls are involved, what are their names, what's -- what's going on? And so Brunel's deposition is set and then he -- he finagles out of it, too. I don't recall exactly what his excuse was, but, you know, evaded the deposition and in fact, later information came to light he was hiding out in the mansion of Epstein while he's claiming he's unavailable for deposition. So -- so this pattern of Mr. Dershowitz, you know, there were three attempts to obtain information from him, if that's all I had, I guess that would have been one thing. But what I had was a pattern of people who were implicated in the sex trafficking ring evading questions, you know, quite in violation of court orders and depositions and things -- I shouldn't say court orders -- in violation of the deposition notices that were being sent and agreements being made through counsel . And then in addition to that, I had this, so why -- why would you think that there's this sex trafficking, you know, ring going on? It sounds kind of farfetched. Well, one of the things that I had available to me on December 30th was a photograph that was widely available on the Internet, and that photograph depicted three people. ROUGH DRAFT ONLY HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_021926

Oo O DN OO FF WwW NY =| NO RO PO PNP NM NO | S| S| HS SF S| S| S| S| S| non BP WO NO -|- ODO OO WDN OO OT BP WO NYO — 104 It depicted Glen Maxwell, Prince Andrew and Virginia Roberts, and at the time that it looked like Virginia Roberts was an underage girl, she was not dressed in formal attire. And Prince Andrew had his arm around her, I think if memory serves, and right next -- smiling in the background is Miss Maxwell, and it appeared that that was a private residence presumably in London close to Buckingham Palace where Prince Andrew lived. So here was Prince Andrew with this underage girl with Glen Maxwell, the right-hand girl, if that's the right expression. I probably should say -- strike that -- right-hand woman of Mr. Epstein, that were there and somebody had taken the photograph. Given the surrounding circumstances, I thought perhaps Mr. Epstein had taken the photograph. So that would have shown Virginia Roberts's sexual abuse was not confined just to Florida, not confined to the New York mansion, it would have -- it would have presumably continued into London where one of, you know, the highest, most powerful persons in the governmental structure that exists in England was now involved in sexual abuse. And so that created grave concern about, how far did this sex trafficking ring reach, what were their ROUGH DRAFT ONLY HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_021927

Oo O DN OO FF WwW NY =| NO RO PO PNP NM NO | S| S| HS SF S| S| S| S| S| non BP WO NO -|- ODO OO WDN OO OT BP WO NYO — 105 connections, what were their abilities to influence, you know, law enforcement agencies in those countries, in England or law enforcement agencies in this country through power that somebody at that level, fifth, I think in line to the British Throne, would have, you know, presumably access to levers of power that other people might not -- might not have. And so that is the -- I believe is the information that I had available to me on December 30th involving not just Virginia Roberts, but the entire sex trafficking organization. Q. Okay. And that, just to clarify again, it exhausts and refreshed your recollection as to both the information you were relying on as to the allegations about Virginia Roberts and as to the allegations about other minors; is that right? A. Correct. Q. So I don't have to ask you separately about Roberts? A. That's right. No, and I gave you a heads-up that was going to be long answer. Q. You made Mr. Dershowitz look like an amateur. If I could -- MR. SCAROLA: I'm sorry. Like a what? MR. SIMPSON: Amateur, at long answers. ROUGH DRAFT ONLY HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_021928

Oo O DN OO FF WwW NY =| NO RO PO PNP NM NO | S| S| HS SF S| S| S| S| S| non BP WO NO -|- ODO OO WDN OO OT BP WO NYO — 106 THE WITNESS: Well, I wasn't trying to -- let me be clear. I was not trying to filibuster. You asked me a very direct question which was, I want to know everything that was in your memory on December 30th, and as you can tell, this was a very important subject to me and it's very important to Miss Roberts and I wanted to be comprehensive. And I gave you the opportunity to say, let's have a narrower question, but you wanted a broad questions. That's why I did this. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. Mr. Cassell, I apologize for attempting humor in this intense situation. A. This is very important to me. This is not -- this is not something that I find funny. Q. Well, I say it's very important to Mr. Dershowitz, Professor Dershowitz also, he was trying to answer questions. I'm not questioning that you were trying to answer my question and I appreciate it. Mr. Dershowitz was trying to do the same thing and it is a difficult situation. A. All right. Q. So I was not trying to make light of the questions I'm asking you. A. This involves sexual abuse -- ROUGH DRAFT ONLY HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_021929

Oo O DN OO FF WwW NY =| NO RO PO PNP NM NO | S| S| HS SF S| S| S| S| S| non BP WO NO -|- ODO OO WDN OO OT BP WO NYO — 107 Q. I understand that. A. -- of multiple girls. Q. I understand that. I understand the allegations that have been made. A. And your side keeps attacking these girls. That's why it's emotional for me. Q. That part is not true, but I will ask questions -- A. I believe that part is true. I would like to take a break. I'm sorry. THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are going off the video record, 4:01 p.m. (Thereupon, a recess was taken. ) THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are back on the video record 4:04 p.m. MR. SCAROLA: The record should reflect that Mr. and Mrs. Dershowitz have -- are no longer present. MR. SIMPSON: Correct. MR. SCAROLA: Thank you. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. Mr. Cassell, would you agree with me that accusing someone -- MS. McCAWLEY: I'm sorry. I just realized that she stepped out to get water. I didn't ask. ROUGH DRAFT ONLY HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_021930

Oo O DN OO FF WwW NY =| NO RO PO PNP NM NO | S| S| HS SF S| S| S| S| S| non BP WO NO -|- ODO OO WDN OO OT BP WO NYO — 108 I'm sure it's probably -- THE WITNESS: It's all right. MR. SIMPSON: That's okay with you? THE WITNESS: Sure. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. Would you agree with me that accusing a person of -- an adult of engaging in sex with a minor is a serious accusation? A. Sure. Q. And would you agree with me that the cause of victims' rights is harmed and not furthered by false allegations of sexual abuse? A. Sure. Q. I want to go back. I'm going to follow up on some aspects of your answer. A. Sure. Q. Kind of work my way through some of those. A. Sure. Q. But first let me -- let me ask this: You drew in your answer a lot of inferences based on the facts or information you -- you recited, inferences that Professor Dershowitz had engaged in the conduct alleged; is that fair to say? A. I think part of it was -- was inference, part of were the facts. I mean, you say a lot of inferences. ROUGH DRAFT ONLY HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_021931

Oo O DN OO FF WwW NY =| NO RO PO PNP NM NO | S| S| HS SF S| S| S| S| S| non BP WO NO -|- ODO OO WDN OO OT BP WO NYO — 109 I think that would be, you know, subject to the debate which perhaps we are going to do now. Q. No. Let's say you drew some inferences based on information you had; is that fair to say? A. Sure. Q. Okay. It's true, is it not, that you and your co-counsel, Mr. Edwards, had decided to seek the joinder of Miss Roberts and Jane Doe 4 as parties no later than the Summer of 2014? A. Jane Doe 4, I think, give or take, yeah. I think Jane Doe -- well, that's -- there's a nomenclature issue. Let's refer to -- how do you want to refer to Virginia Roberts? Shall we just call her -- Q. I think we can call her Miss Roberts since the name is now known. A. Right. Sure. Q. And just clarifying, we can call Jane Doe 4. We won't use that name, Jane Doe 4. A. Right. I think sometime in the Summer or the Fall the decision was made to -- to approach the U.S. Attorneys's Office to get their agreement to add her into the case. And they declined, which ultimately led to the filing on December 30th. Q. Okay. And the basis for my question was, I believe I saw in a pleading that you had represented to ROUGH DRAFT ONLY HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_021932

Oo O DN OO FF WwW NY =| NO RO PO PNP NM NO | S| S| HS SF S| S| S| S| S| non BP WO NO -|- ODO OO WDN OO OT BP WO NYO — 110 the court that you had been asking the government for consent since, I believe it was the Summer of 2014; is that consistent with your recollection? A. The exact timing, you know, if I looked at the documents, we could refresh my recollection. We put those documents into the court record in January 21st, 2015, the correspondence that we had had. The U.S. Attorney's Office had delayed, you Know, giving us an answer on that for as I recall, several months and ultimately they said, no, and that's why we filed the pleading. Q. Okay. My question is: Why, during that several-month period before you filed the motion itself, did you not contact Professor Dershowitz to ask him if this was true, and if he had any evidence to refute it? Why not contact the person you're accusing? A. I mean, there's a cost -- you know, again, this is going take a little bit of an answer, not as long as the other one. Q. I won't cut you off. A. No, you have been very polite. I appreciate that. This is about a five-minute answer, just so you got a heads-up. Okay. So the issue of why didn't I contact Mr. Dershowitz, it's a cost benefit situation. So what ROUGH DRAFT ONLY HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_021933

Oo O DN OO FF WwW NY =| NO RO PO PNP NM NO | S| S| HS SF S| S| S| S| S| non BP WO NO -|- ODO OO WDN OO OT BP WO NYO — 111 would be the benefit of asking him. Well, I thought the benefit would be zero. What I thought we would get was zero, because in 2009, an effort to depose him had been made unsuccessful. 2011, an effort had been made to depose him unsuccessfully. In 2013 -- MR. SIMPSON: Was there an objection on the phone? MR. INDYKE: No. MR. SIMPSON: Okay. I didn't think so. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. Please continue. A. In 2013, an effort had been made to depose him unsuccessfully, and I mentioned a moment ago this manner of people involved in Epstein's organization that had been evading efforts to get information. So it wasn't just that something hadn't been received in the mail. It appeared to me that Dershowitz fit into a pattern of not providing information and, indeed, he had been party to making, supposedly, Mr. Epstein available to the Palm Beach Police Department and then pulling -- pulling him back. And that seemed to be a stall tactic. So I didn't think we were going get any information. On the other hand, now we had to waive a cost of calling Mr. Dershowitz and saying, we are preparing to file a pleading that identifies you. And I ROUGH DRAFT ONLY HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_021934

Oo O DN OO FF WwW NY =| NO RO PO PNP NM NO | S| S| HS SF S| S| S| S| S| non BP WO NO -|- ODO OO WDN OO OT BP WO NYO — 112 don't want -- I'm not going to get into communications that Mr. Edwards and I had, which you have asked what was my state of mind on December 30th as to why I hadn't called Mr. Dershowitz? My own personal state of mind, not revealing any attorney/client communications, but it does revolve around Virginia Roberts. I had in front of me evidence of an international sex trafficking organization that was going to the Fifth in line to the Throne in England, to very powerful people in the United States, to a billionaire in Palm Beach, Florida, Epstein. Very powerful people. And what I also had was a history of Mr. Epstein intimidating, threatening witnesses, and in some cases, you know, potentially what seemed to be possibly life-threatening kinds of situations. There was a report of investigators quote, unquote, following I think it was girls or witnesses against Mr. Epstein and, indeed, had done so in a circumstance that suggested the possibility that somebody had been forced off the road. I had been personally and directly involved in an Epstein effort to intimidate a witness in the Summer of 2010, which was a very disturbing incident. The incident took place right around, I don't know, July ROUGH DRAFT ONLY HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_021935

Oo O DN OO FF WwW NY =| NO RO PO PNP NM NO | S| S| HS SF S| S| S| S| S| non BP WO NO -|- ODO OO WDN OO OT BP WO NYO — 113 2nd, July 3rd, I believe it was 2010, where a woman that I was representing along with my colleague, Brad Edwards, I'll refer to her by initials, if that's all right with you. (Phone Interruption. ) MR. SIMPSON: THE WITNESS: MR. SIMPSON: MR. SCAROLA: could we identify who is on the phone now, please? Who is on the phone? MR. SIMPSON: MR. SWEDER: MR. SIMPSON: MR. SWEDER: MR. INDYKE: MR. SIMPSON: those? Okay. THE WITNESS: because I kind of got distracted there. Let's see. We had -- oh, right. Okay. That was the other point I wanted to make. And I've only got about another minute or two, but the point was, I had had personal experience on about July 2nd, I believe it was, On the phone, could you -- Can we mute them? Would you mute it, please? Before the phone is muted, Yeah. Who is on the phone? Ken Sweder. Anyone else? Alan Dershowitz. Darrin Indyke. Anyone else? Did you get I just need to make a note ROUGH DRAFT ONLY HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_021936

Oo O DN OO FF WwW NY =| NO RO PO PNP NM NO | S| S| HS SF S| S| S| S| S| non BP WO NO -|- ODO OO WDN OO OT BP WO NYO — 114 2010. What had happened was, S.R. was a young woman who had been sexually abused by Jeffrey Epstein. She was identified in the nonprosecution agreement as sex abuse victim, and we had a civil suit going against Mr. Epstein and her case was set for trial. It was going to be the first trial against Mr. Epstein. You know, this -- he had abused, according to the NPA, I think 35 girls, and at that point I think, gosh, I think 31 of them had settled, all the girls except for the three represented by Mr. Edwards and I had settled. So this was going to be the first person that was going to bring, if you will, the light of day to this. This was going to be the first time where this was going to be tried in open court. So this was potentially an opportunity to, you know, expose exactly what Epstein has done because people are going to be called as witnesses including Epstein and others like him. So this was, I think, a potentially explosive situation for Mr. Epstein because all of the -- all of the crimes that his organization had been committing were going to be exposed during the course of this trial. So -- but this all ROUGH DRAFT ONLY HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_021937

Oo O DN OO FF WwW NY =| NO RO PO PNP NM NO | S| S| HS SF S| S| S| S| S| non BP WO NO -|- ODO OO WDN OO OT BP WO NYO — 115 depended on S.R. being able to get to trial and not be intimidated. She's a very petite woman and what happened that evening was a very large, physically large, private investigator who turned out had been hired by Mr. Epstein, went and parked his car in front of her home. And then, indeed, as I understand it -- I wasn't there, but I was getting frantic reports from -- from people in Florida about what was going on -- the car was pivoted so that I think the phrase is high-beaming or something. The private investigator was shining his lights into $.R.'s home and she was terrified. We were trying to get assistance to her and then we went -- we were filing motions to try to protect her. She had to flee her home, so that's what happened to S.R. just a few days before she went to trial. And so I'm thinking, you know, if we call Mr. Dershowitz, who is his first call going to be? I mean I think -- I didn't have this information on December 30th. I want the record to be clear that, sure enough, we learned today that within just a day or two of these ROUGH DRAFT ONLY HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_021938

Oo O DN OO FF WwW NY =| NO RO PO PNP NM NO | S| S| HS SF S| S| S| S| S| non BP WO NO -|- ODO OO WDN OO OT BP WO NYO — 116 allegations coming out, Dershowitz called international sex trafficker Epstein to make sure their memories coincided or something like that. And I was afraid if we contacted Alan Dershowitz, what had happened to S.R. was going to happen to Virginia Roberts, which was going to be even worse because she had been hiding out in Australia for a number of years to escape Epstein. And now this would potentially tip him off that she was now back in contact and he would redouble efforts to find her. So I was, frankly again, just speaking for myself, I'm not speaking for my co-counsel, but I was extremely afraid of tipping off Mr. Dershowitz that we were going to be filing this pleading because he would have contacted Epstein in the same intimidation tactics and, indeed, life-threatening tactics that had apparently been used against other witnesses might be used against her. I mean, I also was thinking frankly, about whether to file this pleading, because of the risk that she would be in, but I thought that the safest way to protect her was to file this so that the information was out there. ROUGH DRAFT ONLY HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_021939

Oo O DN OO FF WwW NY =| NO RO PO PNP NM NO | S| S| HS SF S| S| S| S| S| non BP WO NO -|- ODO OO WDN OO OT BP WO NYO — 117 And, at that point, you know, you know, if she disappeared or something, the world would know, you know, who the first person would be to look at would be, you know, Jeffrey Epstein and other people to look at would be those who were associated with him. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. I want to go back to your testimony a bit ago about the Fifth Amendment. You testified that Mr. Epstein took the Fifth when he was asked about Professor Dershowitz? A. Yes. Q. Is that right? A. Yes. Q. Didn't he take the Fifth with respect to a whole host of people? A. With some other people, yes, but not with every person. That's why I want my memory to aid here. If you look at the Jeffrey Epstein answers to interrogatories in one of the civil cases, he provided, for example, the name of Alessi as someone who would have relevant information, but not Dershowitz. And that was consistent with I think invoking the Fifth, not on the sort of household people, but the people who were higher up in the echelon which would ROUGH DRAFT ONLY HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_021940

Oo O DN OO FF WwW NY =| NO RO PO PNP NM NO | S| S| HS SF S| S| S| S| S| non BP WO NO -|- ODO OO WDN OO OT BP WO NYO — 118 have been, in my view, Mr. Dershowitz. Q. At his deposition, he took the Fifth as to everyone he was asked about; isn't that true? A. I haven't looked at the depositions lately. There were also variations in tactics that he used. I recall for example, that sometimes when he was asked about a person, even if he knew that person, he would pretend not to know that person and try to communicate that, you know, maybe he didn't know that person. But he did he did have broad invocations of the Fifth Amendment in his deposition. I certainly wouldn't quarrel with you on that. Q. And you understand or I believe this was in your testimony that if a person takes the Fifth in response to a question in a civil litigation, that answer can be used against the person generally; is that right? A. Sure. Right. Q. Are you aware of any authority whatsoever that Person A taking the Fifth can be used as evidence against Person B? A. Yeah, we are sitting here in the -- let's see, we are in Florida, in the 11th Circuit, and that is -- there's 11th circuit case law that allows that to happen. I could give you the citation, you know, in ROUGH DRAFT ONLY HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_021941

Oo O DN OO FF WwW NY =| NO RO PO PNP NM NO | S| S| HS SF S| S| S| S| S| non BP WO NO -|- ODO OO WDN OO OT BP WO NYO — 119 about five minutes if you Know me take a break, I can give you the case. Q. We -- we -- we can come back to it. A. Okay. Q. In your mind, if you have a witness who is asked about a long litany of persons and he takes the Fifth Amendment in response to all of them, is it fair to draw an adverse inference as to the other person? A. Okay. So now this will be about a three-minute answer, if that's okay, and I would say the answer to that question is, yes, and I want to explain why . The 11th Circuit I'll give you the name, if I have a chance to look at WesLaw or something like that has a four-factor test that says, look, you can't just draw an adverse inference against someone in every circumstance, you have to balance various factors. And so you have to look at the relationship between the parties and things like that, the degree of control that one person has over another party. Different factors that you would look at. And so I -- I think there are two things here that would lead to the conclusion that under the four-factor balancing test, the adverse inference could be used in the 11th Circuit and recall that the crime ROUGH DRAFT ONLY HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_021942

Oo O DN OO FF WwW NY =| NO RO PO PNP NM NO | S| S| HS SF S| S| S| S| S| non BP WO NO -|- ODO OO WDN OO OT BP WO NYO — 120 victims’ rights act case that we are talking about is in the Southern District of Florida. I think the record should be clear that that is in the 11th Circuit. And so that case law says that you look at these different factors, one of the factors, that to my mind would weigh heavily in favor of drawing the adverse inference would be the degree of control that the one party has over the other. Dershowitz was the attorney for Epstein and, indeed, we heard today that he continues to be the attorney on the Tri-Tech case and I'm assuming an attorney/client privilege on other matters as well. So he would seem to have a significant control over that. The other thing that was going on in my mind when I'm drawing the adverse inference is that there might be some people that are invoking the Fifth Amendment but not getting sound legal advice. An attorney can only allow his client to assert a Fifth Amendment privilege in civil case if there's a significant risk that the answer will be incriminating. You can't just invoke it willy-nilly. And I knew that Mr. Epstein had been receiving -- you know, as a billionaire would -- you know, the best legal advice that money could buy, and the advice he was getting with regard to questions about ROUGH DRAFT ONLY HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_021943

Oo O DN OO FF WwW NY =| NO RO PO PNP NM NO | S| S| HS SF S| S| S| S| S| non BP WO NO -|- ODO OO WDN OO OT BP WO NYO — 121 Mr. Dershowitz was apparently, based on the transcripts I was seeing, to take the Fifth even with regard to any knowledge of Mr. Dershowitz. So in those circumstances I did think it was highly fair to draw an inference from Mr. Epstein, particularly where, you know, like some of the sexual abuse involved Virginia, Epstein, and Dershowitz was the allegations, you know, the trafficking and so forth. So you know, if Virginia is making an allegation, Mr. Epstein is invoking the Fifth and Mr. Dershowitz is, you know, declining to answer questions, it seemed to me in those circumstances an adverse inference would be fair. Q. Isn't it routine practice for a witness who is the target or faces -- I'm going to start over. Isn't it routine practice for a witness who faces potential criminal liability to take the Fifth as to all substantive questions? A. That's not -- no. I would say absolutely not. And again, I'm drawing -- I was a federal prosecutor for four years. I was a federal district court judge for about five-and-a-half years. I would say, that is not the practice and, indeed, that would be inconsistent with Fifth Amendment case law as I understand it. ROUGH DRAFT ONLY HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_021944

Oo O DN OO FF WwW NY =| NO RO PO PNP NM NO | S| S| HS SF S| S| S| S| S| non BP WO NO -|- ODO OO WDN OO OT BP WO NYO — 122 Q. As a prosecutor, did you ever in a prosecution against one person successfully introduce into evidence that somebody else had taken the Fifth? MR. SCAROLA: In a criminal case? MR. SIMPSON: In a criminal case, yeah. THE WITNESS: So I had about 20 trials, most of them I was in the general crimes units in the eastern district of Virginia. Most of them involved drug dealers and gun runners that did not -- where those issues didn't come up. So as sitting here today, I can't recall a circumstance where in that criminal case I was able to do that. The standards for using it in a Civil case would be much, much broader. MR. SIMPSON: Move to strike nonresponsive portion of the answer. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. Have you been involved in a civil case in which you have successfully introduced into evidence the fact that Person A took the Fifth Amendment as evidence against Person B? A. I haven't been involved in many civil cases involving invocations of the Fifth Amendment so I can't recall a circumstance like that right now. Q. And is the 11th Circuit case you're referring ROUGH DRAFT ONLY HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_021945

Oo O DN OO FF WwW NY =| NO RO PO PNP NM NO | S| S| HS SF S| S| S| S| S| non BP WO NO -|- ODO OO WDN OO OT BP WO NYO — 123 a criminal case or a civil case? A. My understanding, it's a civil case. Q. Did you ask -- you referred to the complaint that is styled Jane Doe 102 versus Epstein, you referred to that complaint? A. Yes. Q. And Jane Doe 102 is Virginia Roberts, correct? A. Yes. Q. And you talked about the Josefsburg firm, Bob Josefsburg, who we all -- there was testimony about him being a respected lawyer; you heard that. Right? A. — Right. Q. Did you ever ask Mr. Josefsburg if he -- if the term "academicians" in that complaint included Alan Dershowitz? A. Did I -- MS. McCAWLEY: I'm sorry. To the extent that it reveals anything that is a privilege of Virginia's because she was represented by Mr. Josefsburg, I don't want you to reveal. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. I'm just asking whether you ever asked him the question. Don't give me the answer right now. But did you ever ask him the question? ROUGH DRAFT ONLY HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_021946

Oo O DN OO FF WwW NY =| NO RO PO PNP NM NO | S| S| HS SF S| S| S| S| S| non BP WO NO -|- ODO OO WDN OO OT BP WO NYO — 124 A. Did I personally do that? Q. Yes. A. No. To my knowledge, I've never met Mr. Josefsburg, so no. Q. To your knowledge, did anyone else in the group of attorneys you were working with ask Mr. Josefsburg that question? MR. SCAROLA: Excuse me. To the extent that that question would call for a communication within the common interest privilege, you should not answer it. THE WITNESS: I'm going take my counsel's advice. I can't answer that. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. You're not going to answer whether to your knowledge anyone asked Mr. Josefsburg? A. Right. Q. But you are testifying that the fact that Mr. Josefsburg had signed a complaint with a generic term "academicians" in it was some evidence, in your mind, against Professor Dershowitz? A. Yes, because he's an academician and shortly after the complaint was filed, a partner in his firm began asking Alan Dershowitz questions about the sex abuse matter that we are discussing here. ROUGH DRAFT ONLY HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_021947

Oo O DN OO FF WwW NY =| NO RO PO PNP NM NO | S| S| HS SF S| S| S| S| S| non BP WO NO -|- ODO OO WDN OO OT BP WO NYO — 125 Q. Did you misspeak about whether they were asking for Mr. Dershowitz or they were asking some other witness? A. No, they -- I'm sorry. They asked about -- thank you for that clarification. They asked other witnesses about Dershowitz's Knowledge of the matters we have been discussing. Q. All right. And at those depositions, which deposition do you have in mind? A. Rodriguez and Alessi. Q. Okay. And didn't Rodriguez testify that he didn't know, didn't have any knowledge as to Mr. Dershowitz doing anything improper? A. He said that he was present at the scene of the crime, if you will. Now, whether he had direct knowledge of what happened in the bedroom, you're right, he didn't -- he did not indicate that. Q. The "scene of the crime" being what? Sex abuse of minor girls. But I take it you're referring to a location? That's right. What location are you referring to? eee pS Jeffrey Epstein's Palm Beach mansion. Q. How many academicians visited Mr. Epstein's Palm Beach mansion? ROUGH DRAFT ONLY HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_021948

Oo O DN OO FF WwW NY =| NO RO PO PNP NM NO | S| S| HS SF S| S| S| S| S| non BP WO NO -|- ODO OO WDN OO OT BP WO NYO — 126 A. I'm not certain. Q. Do you -- can you give any estimate at all? A. You know, in this case, I've probably seen reference to another in Florida, you know, maybe another four or five academics that had some kind of interaction with Epstein. Q. And you are aware that Epstein was so closely associated with Harvard, that he had his own office there? A. No, I didn't know that Mr. Epstein had an office at Harvard. Q. Did you know that Mr. Epstein regularly had dinners and other social events in which there were scores of distinguished academicians? A. Are we talking about Florida or New York? Q. Generally. A. Yeah, I knew there was some events like that in New York. I don't recall having specific information about an event like that in -- in Palm Beach. MR. SCAROLA: Richard, let me just make note of the fact that it's almost 4:30, and by agreement, we are going stop at 4:30, so if there's something really pressing you want to get in this afternoon, this would be a good time to do that. ROUGH DRAFT ONLY HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_021949

Oo O DN OO FF WwW NY =| NO RO PO PNP NM NO | S| S| HS SF S| S| S| S| S| non BP WO NO -|- ODO OO WDN OO OT BP WO NYO — 127 MR. SIMPSON: Well, we have a lot to cover, but I'll ask a few more questions until we get to that -- that time. MR. SCAROLA: Okay. It's 4:25. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. In the Rodriguez deposition at one point, he was asked a question and he responds with the name, Larry Dershowitz. Do you recall that? A. Oh, you mean Larry -- you didn't mean to say Larry Dershowitz. Q. His answer was Larry Dershowitz in the deposition? A. I don't recall that. Q. Did you consider whether he was thinking about Larry Summers * (ph)? A. My recollection of the Rodriguez depo and, you Know, there are two depos here, Alessi and Rodriguez, was that -- that the identifiers with regard to Dershowitz were famous criminal defense lawyer-type which would fit Mr. Dershowitz, but not fit Mr. Summers. Q. Okay. We will come back and look at the transcript itself. A. Okay. Sure. Q. One of the other things that you mentioned in your -- your answer, was that the flight logs showed ROUGH DRAFT ONLY HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_021950

Oo O DN OO FF WwW NY =| NO RO PO PNP NM NO | S| S| HS SF S| S| S| S| S| non BP WO NO -|- ODO OO WDN OO OT BP WO NYO — 128 Mr. Dershowitz on a flight with Tatiana; is that right? A. Correct. Q. Did you find out before December 30th of 2014 how old Tatiana was at the time? A. Yes. Q. How -- how old was she? A. I understood she was around -- which time are we referring to, 1998? Q. We are referring to when she -- the log shows her on a flight with Professor Dershowitz. A. Yeah, I was understood she was over the age, she was 18 or older, you know, and I think within a couple of years maybe 18. Q. And you heard today that Mr. Dershowitz's, Professor Dershowitz's wife was able to determine in a few second on Google that she was 24 at the time. Any reason to question that? A. Well, because -- I think I want to look at the information we were talking about. Is the question of time frame and so, you know, the Dershowitzes on these flights with Epstein in 1998, and I think 2004, 2005, which is, you know, there's like a -- obviously a Six or seven-year period, so I would want to know exactly what time frame we are talking about. Q. Well -- ROUGH DRAFT ONLY HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_021951

Oo O DN OO FF WwW NY =| NO RO PO PNP NM NO | S| S| HS SF S| S| S| S| S| non BP WO NO -|- ODO OO WDN OO OT BP WO NYO — 129 A. But I understood, let me be clear, I understood Tatiana was, you know, 18 or older at the time. Q. And -- and -- and you could have found out exactly how old she was; isn't that true? A. Potentially, yeah. Q. Yes. And in fact, we heard today that someone found it in just a few seconds? A. We heard a representation to that effect. I don't Know if that's true or not. Q. Okay. Do you have any reason to doubt that Tatiana was 24 at the time? A. I mean, give or take. I mean, give or take. I mean, I'm not trying to say -- let me be clear. I know she's over the age of 18. Now whether she's 24 or something, that was not something that I had specifically -- Q. I understand you don't know, but I'm just asking whether if we represent to you that our research indicates she was 24 at the time, do you have any reason to question that? MR. SCAROLA: At what time? MR. SIMPSON: At the time of the flight, the flight logs showed -- THE WITNESS: 1998 flight? ROUGH DRAFT ONLY HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_021952

Oo O DN OO FF WwW NY =| NO RO PO PNP NM NO | S| S| HS SF S| S| S| S| S| non BP WO NO -|- ODO OO WDN OO OT BP WO NYO — 130 BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. Whatever the flight -- the date of the Flight? A. Yeah. I think that sounds too old for Tatiana. Q. Okay. A. But I mean, I don't, you know, we could obviously check into it so... Q. And you do know though that she was over 18? A. Eighteen or over, yes. Q. Eighteen or over. And have you ever heard of an older man having a relationship with a younger woman; has that ever happened in your experience? A. Sure, but what -- Q. That's my -- A. I guess, how much of a difference? I mean the question is, you know -- sure, there are examples of that. It's unusual, but there are examples of that. Q. Is a 24-year-old woman an adult? A. Yes. Q. Is there anything criminal or anything criminal about a man of Jeffrey Epstein's age having a relationship with a 24-year-old woman? MR. SCAROLA: I assume you agree that depends upon the nature of the relationship. ROUGH DRAFT ONLY HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_021953

Oo O DN OO FF WwW NY =| NO RO PO PNP NM NO | S| S| HS SF S| S| S| S| S| non BP WO NO -|- ODO OO WDN OO OT BP WO NYO — 131 MR. SIMPSON: Is there anything -- let me -- I think my question was clear. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. You can answer the question. Having a romantic relationship with a 24-year-old? A. Just if those are the only facts, sure, that's not a crime. Q. And so if -- MR. SCAROLA: And it is -- it is 4:30. MR. SIMPSON: Let me just ask one more question then. MR. SCAROLA: Sure. So long as it isn't one of the 30-minute ones. MR. SIMPSON: That's in the witness's control . MR. SCOTT: That applies to you. MR. SCAROLA: So stop smiling. MR. SCOTT: I'm not smiling at all. I'm anything but smiling, Mr. Scarola. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. My -- my question -- MR. SCOTT: Oh, you are. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. My question, Mr. Cassell, is that if all you have is the fact that a middled-aged man is on an ROUGH DRAFT ONLY HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_021954

Oo O DN OO FF WwW NY =| NO RO RP P NO NO HF S| | FS Se Se Ss Ss =| =| non BP WO NYO F- FO OO DN OO OT BP WO NO — 132 airplane with a 24-year-old woman, is there a basis to draw an adverse inference from that about anything? A. If that's all that you have, obviously not. MR. SIMPSON: Okay. MR. SCAROLA: Thank you. MR. SIMPSON: We will break then and we will talk off the record about logistics for tomorrow. MR. SCAROLA: Okay. THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are going off the video record, 4:31 p.m. ROUGH DRAFT ONLY HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_021955