Filing # 34801581 E-Filed 11/23/2015 05:53:31 PM IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SEVENTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO.: CACE 15-000072 BRADLEY J. EDWARDS and PAUL G. CASSELL, Plaintiffs, vs. ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ, Defendant. / PLAINTIFFS/COUNTERCLAIM DEFENDANT EDWARDS AND CASSELL’S RESPONSE TO DERSHOWITZ’S MOTION TO DETERMINE CONFIDENTIALITY OF COURT RECORDS Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants Bradley J. Edwards and Paul G. Cassell, by and through their undersigned attorneys, hereby file this response to Dershowitz’s Motion to Determine Confidentiality of Court Records. The records at issue are not confidential, and so the Court should deny Dershowitz’s motion in its entirety. The court records at issue are three court filings by attorneys Edwards and Cassell in which they recite their client’s (Mr. Virginia Giuffre’s) allegations that she was sexually abused by Dershowitz. These records are hardly “confidential” in this defamation case, where the parties have claims and counterclaims about these sexual abuse Allegations. Rather, these records are an important part of this case, since they not only support the conclusion that Dershowitz abused Ms. Giuffre, but also indisputably establish Edwards and Cassell’s strong basis for filing the allegations on her behalf. Moreover, contrary to assertions made in Dershowitz’s motion, these documents have never been found to be “confidential” by any other court. And Dershowitz has repeatedly referred to HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010757

Edwards, Bradley vs. Dershowitz Case No.: CACE 15-000072 Edwards and Cassells Response to Dershowitz's Motion to Determine Confidentiality of Court Records Page 2 of 20 these documents, not only in defamatory statements broadcast worldwide, but also in his pleadings before this Court and in recent depositions. Indeed, Dershowitz said in his media interviews that he wants “everything to be made public” and implied that Edwards and Cassell had something to hide. Accordingly, Dershowitz has failed to carry his heavy burden to justify sealing these presumptively-public documents. L DERSHOWITZ HAS NOT JUSTIFIED SEALING ALLEGED DEFAMATORY RECORDS THAT ARE INTEGRAL TO THIS DEFAMATION CASE. In his motion, Dershowitz never recounts the heavy burden that he must carry to seal the records at issue. To be sure, Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.420 allows for the sealing of “confidential” materials. But the Rule begins by recounting the overarching principle that “t]he public shall have access to all records of the judicial branch of government, except as provided below.” Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.420(a). This rule is a codification of the Florida Supreme Court’s admonition that a “a strong presumption of openness exists for all court proceedings. A trial is a public event, and the filed records of court proceedings are public records available for public examination.” Barron vy. Florida Freedom Newspapers, Inc., 531 So.2d 113, 118 (Fla. 1988) (emphasis added). In light of this presumption of openness, “[t]he burden of proof in [closure] proceedings shall always be on the party seeking closure.” Jd. To obtain a sealing order, the party seeking sealing must carry a “heavy burden.” Id. Remarkably, Dershowitz fails to acknowledge these well-settled principles. More important, he even fails to cite (much less discuss) the limited substantive exceptions to this general principle of access— and which specific exception he believes applies to this HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010758

Edwards, Bradley vs. Dershowitz Case No.: CACE 15-000072 Edwards and Cassells Response to Dershowitz's Motion to Determine Confidentiality of Court Records Page 3 of 20 case. Accordingly, it is impossible for Edwards and Cassell to respond with precision to his motion. The exceptions that might arguably be in play in this case permit records to be maintained as confidential in order to: (i) Prevent a serious and imminent threat to the fair, impartial, and orderly administration of justice; (ii) Protect trade secrets; (iii) Protect a compelling governmental interest; (iv) Obtain evidence to determine legal issues in a case; (v) Avoid substantial injury to innocent third parties; (vi) Avoid substantial injury to a party by disclosure of matters protected by a common law or privacy right not generally inherent in the specific type of proceeding sought to be closed; (vii) Comply with established public policy set forth in the Florida or United States Constitution or statutes or Florida rules or case law.... Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.420(c)(9) (codifying the holding in Barron y. Florida Freedom Newspapers, Inc., 531 So.2d 113 (Fla. 1988)). The only exception that seems to even arguably apply here is exception vi, which itself specifically provides that confidentiality is appropriate only where disclosure is “not generally inherent in the specific type of proceeding sought to be closed” (emphasis added). Of course, this lawsuit is a defamation action — involving adefamation claim by Edwards and Cassell and adefamationcounterclaim by Dershowitz. Disclosure, discussion, and debate about the defamatory statements at issue lies at the heart of the case. Accordingly, disclosure of these materials is “inherent” in the case itself. The principle that defamatory material in a defamation case cannot be sealed is recognized in Carnegie v. Tedder, 698 So.2d 1310 (2d DCA 1997). Carnegie involved a claim and counterclaim between two parties (Carnegie and Tedder), one of whom alleged that disclosure of HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010759

Edwards, Bradley vs. Dershowitz Case No.: CACE 15-000072 Edwards and Cassells Response to Dershowitz's Motion to Determine Confidentiality of Court Records Page 4 of 20 the materials in the records would be harmful to his _ professional reputation. Carnegie recited subsection vi’s restriction on release of materials involving a privacy right, but noted that “statements Tedder alleged were defamatory and damaging were allegations in Carnegie's counterclaim for which she seeks damages. These matters were not peripheral to the lawsuit; they were inherent to it.” Jd at 1312. Of course, exactly the same principle applies here: sexual abuse allegations filed by attorneys Edwards and Cassell for their client Ms. Virginia Giuffre are not peripheral to this lawsuit — they are inherent to it. To see how “inherent” the sexual abuse allegations are to this lawsuit, the Court need look no further than Dershowitz’s counterclaim in this case. Count I of Dershowitz’s Counterclaim (styled as “False Allegations in the Joinder Motion”) contends that Edwards and Cassell should pay him damages because they “filed a pleading in the Federal Action titled ‘Jane Doe #3 and Jane Doe #4’s Motion Pursuant to Rule 21 for Joinder in Action’... .” Dershowitz Counterclaim at { 14. Dershowitz’s Counterclaim then goes on to quote at length from the Joinder Motion. His counterclaim contains, for example, this paragraph recounting the allegations: The Joinder Motion then goes on to allege — without any supporting evidence — as follows: One such powerful individual that Epstein forced then-minor Jane Doe #3 to have sexual relations with was former Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz, a close friend of Epstein’s and well-known criminal defense attorney. Epstein required Jane Doe #3 to have sexual relations with Dershowitz on numerous occasions while she was a minor, not only in Florida but also on private planes, in New York, New Mexico, and the U.S. Virgin HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010760

Edwards, Bradley vs. Dershowitz Case No.: CACE 15-000072 Edwards and Cassells Response to Dershowitz's Motion to Determine Confidentiality of Court Records Page 5 of 20 Islands. In addition to being a participant in the abuse of Jane Doe #3 and other minors, Dershowitz was an eye-witness to the sexual abuse of many other minors by Epstein and several of Epstein’s coconspirators. Dershowitz would later play a significant role in negotiating the [Non-Prosecution Agreement] on Epstein’s behalf. Indeed, Dershowitz helped negotiate an agreement that provided immunity from federal prosecution in the Southern District of Florida not only to Epstein, but also to “any potential coconspirators of Epstein.” Thus, Dershowitz helped negotiate an agreement witha provision that provided protection for himself against criminal prosecution in Florida for sexually abusing Jane Doe #3. Because this broad immunity wouldhave been controversial if disclosed, Dershowitz (along with other members of Epstein’s defense team) and the Government tried to keep the immunity provision secret from all of Epstein’s victims and the general public, even though such secrecy violated the Crime Victims’ Rights Act. Dershowitz Counterclaim at § 15 (quoting Joinder Motion at 4). Remarkably, having quoted at length from the Joinder Motion in his Counterclaim in this case, Dershowitz now seeks to have that very same language from the Joinder Motion deemed “confidential” and sealed. Compare Counterclaim at 15 (block quotation above) with Motion to Determine Confidentiality, Exhibit A at 4 (composite exhibit with proposed “confidential” document that includes paragraph beginning “[o]ne such powerful individual that Epstein forced then-minor Jane Doe #3 to have sexual relations with was former Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz, a close friend of Epstein’s .. . .”). Dershowitz cannot come before this Court and file a counterclaim seeking damages from Edwards and Cassell for alleged defamatory Statements and then ask to have those very same statements placed under seal as “confidential.” See Barron v. Florida Freedom Newspapers, 531 So.2d at 119 (“although generally protected by one’s privacy right, medical reports and history are no longer protected HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010761

Edwards, Bradley vs. Dershowitz Case No.: CACE 15-000072 Edwards and Cassells Response to Dershowitz's Motion to Determine Confidentiality of Court Records Page 6 of 20 when the medical condition becomes an integral part of the civil proceeding, particularly when the condition is asserted as an issue by the party seeking closure” (emphasis added)). Il. JUDGE MARRA’S ORDER IN HIS CASE DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT THE RECORDS BE SEALED IN THIS CASE. Dershowitz also appears to contend that Judge Marra’s order striking some of the materials from the records at issue somehow requires that these stricken materials be kept confidential in this case. Dershowitz’s argument misunderstands both the scope of Judge Marra’s order and its effect in this case. His argument rests on a truncated — and misleading -- description of the events surrounding Judge Marra’s ruling striking certain documents. A more complete description makes clear that Judge Marra has not determined the documents are somehow “confidential” even in the federal Crime Victims’ Rights Act case — much less in this separate state defamation action. Edwards and Cassell filed the federal case pro bono on behalf of two young women who were sexually abused as underage girls by Dershowitz’s close personal friend — Jeffrey Epstein. In 2008, Edwards and Casell filed a petition to enforce the rights of “Jane Doe No. 1” and ‘Jane Doe No. 2” under the Crime Victims’ Rights Act (CVRA), 18 U.S.C. § 3771, alleging that the Government had failed to provide them rights with regard to a plea arrangement it was pursuing with Epstein. Jane Doe No. I and Jane Doe No. 2 v. United States, No. 9:08-cv-80736 (S.D. Fla.). In the course of that case, on October 11, 2011, the victims filed discovery requests with the Government, including requests specifically seeking information about Dershowitz, Prince Andrew, and others. Further efforts from the Government to avoid any discovery HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010762

Edwards, Bradley vs. Dershowitz Case No.: CACE 15-000072 Edwards and Cassells Response to Dershowitz's Motion to Determine Confidentiality of Court Records Page 7 of 20 followed (see generally Docket Entry or “DE” 225-1 at 4-5), ultimately leading to a further Court ruling in June 2013 that the Government should produce documents. DE 189. The Government then produced about 1,500 pages of largely irrelevant materials to the victims (DE 225-1 at 5), while simultaneously submitting 14,825 pages of relevant materials under seal to the Court. The Government claimed that these pages were “privileged” for various reasons, attaching an abbreviated privilege log. While these discovery issues were pending, in the summer of 2014, Edwards and Cassell, contacted Government counsel to request their agreement to add two additional victims to the case, including Ms. Virginia Giuffre (who was identified in court pleadings as “Jane Doe No. 3”). Edwards and Cassell sought to have her added to the case via stipulation, which would have avoided the need to include any detailed facts about her abuse. Weeks went by and the Government — as it had done on a similar request for a stipulation to add another victim — did not respond to counsel’s request for a stipulation. Finally, on December 10, 2014, despite having had four months to provide a position, the Government responded by email to counsel that it was seeking more time, indicating that the Government understood that victims’ counsel might need to file a motion with the court on the matter immediately. DE 291 at 3-5. Rather than file a motion immediately, victims’ counsel waited and continued to press the Government for a stipulation. See id. at 5. Finally, on December 23, 2014 — more than four months after the initial request for a stipulated joinder into the case — the Government tersely indicated its objection, without indicating any reason: “Our position is that we oppose adding new petitioners at this stage of the litigation.” See DE 291 at 5. HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010763

Edwards, Bradley vs. Dershowitz Case No.: CACE 15-000072 Edwards and Cassells Response to Dershowitz's Motion to Determine Confidentiality of Court Records Page 8 of 20 Because the Government now contested the joinder motion, Edwards and Cassell prepared a more detailed pleading explaining the justification for granting the motion. One week after receiving the Government’s objection, on December 30, 2014, Ms. Giuffre (i.e., Jane Doe No. 3) and Jane Doe No. 4 filed a motion (and later a corrected motion) seeking to join the case. DE 279 and DE 280. (Note: DE 280 is the first of the three documents Dershowitz seeks to have declared “confidential” in this case.) Uncertain as to the basis for the Government’s objection, the motion briefly proffered the circumstances that would qualify the two women as “victims” eligible to assert rights under the CVRA. See 18 U.S.C. 3771(e) (defining “crime victim” protected under the Act). With regard to Ms. Giuffre, the motion indicated that when she was a minor, Jeffrey Epstein had trafficked her to Dershowitz and Prince Andrew (among others) for sexual purposes. Jane Doe No. 3 stated that she was prepared to prove her proffer. See DE 280 at 3 (“If allowed to join this action, Jane Doe No. 3 would prove the following . ... “). The motion also provided specific reasons why Jane Doe No. 3’s participation was relevant to the case, including the pending discovery issues regarding Dershowitz and Prince Andrew. DE 280 at 9-10 (explaining several reasons participation of new victims was relevant to existing issues). After the motion was filed, various news organizations published articles about it. Dershowitz also made numerous media statements about the filing, including calling Jane Doe No. 3 “a serial liar” who “has lied through her teeth about many world leaders.” —_ http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/06/us/dershowitz-sex-allegation/, Dershowitz also repeatedly called Edwards and Cassell “two sleazy, unprofessional, disbarable lawyers.” Id On HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010764

Edwards, Bradley vs. Dershowitz Case No.: CACE 15-000072 Edwards and Cassells Response to Dershowitz's Motion to Determine Confidentiality of Court Records Page 9 of 20 January 5, 2015, Dershowitz filed a motion to interveneto argue to have the allegations stricken. DE 282. Dershowitz also argued that Ms. Giuffre had not provided a sworn affidavit attesting to the truth of her allegations. On January 21, 2015, Edwards and Cassell filed a response for Ms. Giuffre and Jane Doe No. 4. DE 291. (Note: This is the second of the three documents Dershowitz seeks to have kept under seal here.) The response enumerated nine specific reasons why Ms. Giuffre’s specific allegations against Dershowitz were relevant to the case, including the fact that Ms. Giuffre needed to establish that she was a “victim” in the case, that pending discovery requests concerning Dershowitz-specific documents were pending, and that Dershowitz’s role as a defense attorney in the case was highly relevant to the motive for the Government and defense counsel to conceal the plea deal from the victims. DE 291 at 17-26 & n.17. The response included a detailed affidavit from Ms. Giuffre about the sexual abuse she had suffered from Epstein, Dershowitz, and other powerful persons. DE 291-1. On February 6, 2015, Edwards and Cassell filed a further pleading (and affidavit from Ms. Giuffre, see DE 291- 1) in support of her motion to intervene. (Note: this affidavit is the third of the three documents Dershowitz seeks to have declared confidential.) On April 7, 2015, Judge Marra denied Ms. Giuffre’s motion to join the case. Judge Marra concluded that “at this juncture in the proceedings” details about the sexual abuse she had suffered was unnecessary to making a determination “of whether Jane Doe 3 and Jane Doe 4 should be permitted to join [the other victims’] claim that the Government violated their rights under the CVRA. The factual details regarding with whom and where the Jane Does engaged in sexual activities are impertinent to this central claim (i.e., that they were known victims of Mr. HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010765

Edwards, Bradley vs. Dershowitz Case No.: CACE 15-000072 Edwards and Cassells Response to Dershowitz's Motion to Determine Confidentiality of Court Records Page 10 of 20 Epstein and the Government owed them CVRA duties), especially considering that the details involve non-parties who are not related to the respondent Government.” DE 324 at 5 (emphasis in original). While Judge Marra struck those allegations, he emphasized that “Jane Doe 3 is free to reassert these factual details through proper evidentiary proof, should [the victims] demonstrate a good faith basis for believing that such details are pertinent to a matter presented for the Court’s consideration. Judge Marra then denied Ms. Giuffre’s motion to join the case, but allowed her to participate as trial witness: “The necessary ‘participation’ of [Ms. Giuffre] . . . in this case can be satisfied by offering . . . properly supported — and relevant, admissible, and non-cumulative — testimony as needed, whether through testimony at trial . . . or affidavits supported in support [of] the relevancy of discovery requests.” DE 324 at 8 (emphasis deleted). In a supplemental order, Judge Marra stated that the victims “may re-refile these documents omitting the stricken portions.” DE 325. The victims have recently refiled the documents. In light of this history, Dershowitz is flatly incorrect when he asserts that “Judge Marra’s Order appropriately precludes the unredacted documents from being re-filed in this case on the public docket.” Confidentiality Motion at 3. To the contrary, the Order specifically permits factual details about Dershowitz’s sexual abuse of Ms. Giuffre to be presented in regard to pertinent matters in the federal CVRA case. And certainly nothing in Judge Marra’s Order could render those documents confidential in this state defamation case, where the central issues swirl around Edwards and Cassell’s good faith basis for filing the allegations. Indeed, the order is not binding in any way in this case, because it is res judicata only as to Ms. Giuffre (the moving HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010766

Edwards, Bradley vs. Dershowitz Case No.: CACE 15-000072 Edwards and Cassells Response to Dershowitz's Motion to Determine Confidentiality of Court Records Page 11 of 20 party in that case), not as to her attorneys Edwards and Cassell. See Palm AFC Holdings, Inc. v. Palm Beach County, 807 So.2d 703 (4° DCA 2002) (“In order for res judicata to apply four identities must be present: (1) identity of the thing sued for; (2) identity of the cause of action; (3) identity of persons and parties; and (4) identity of the quality or capacity of the persons for or against whom the claim is made.”). Il. EDWARDS AND CASSELL WILL BE PREJUDICED IF THEY ARE BARRED FROM QUOTING FROM THE RECORD WHILE DERSHOWITZ IS PERMITTED TO FREELY REFER TO THEM WHENEVER HE FINDS IT CONVENIENT. Dershowitz is also incorrect when he asserts that no prejudice will befall Edwards and Cassell if the records are placed under seal. To the contrary, placing the documents under seal would permit Dershowitz to continue to misrepresent and distort what is contained in those records while preventing Edwards and Cassell from correcting those misrepresentations. Dershowitz has repeatedly referred to details in the records when he has found it convenient to do so — treating the records as not confidential in any away. One clear example comes from Dershowitz’s recent deposition, where he gratuitously injected into the record a reference to a portion of Ms. Giuffre’s affidavit about him watching Ms. Giuffre perform oral sex on Epstein. And then, having injected that gratuitous reference into the record, he proceeded to try to rebut the reference with confidential settlement discussions — but did so by mispresenting what another attorney (David Boies) had said during the settlement discussions. So that the Court may have the full flavor of the exchange, the narrow question to Dershowitz (by attorney Jack HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010767

Edwards, Bradley vs. Dershowitz Case No.: CACE 15-000072 Edwards and Cassells Response to Dershowitz's Motion to Determine Confidentiality of Court Records Page 12 of 20 Scarola) and Dershowitz’s extended answer are quoted in full— including Dershowitz’s reference to the oral sex allegation that he now argues this Court should treat as “confidential”: Q. [Y]ou [are] aware that years before December of 2014, when the CVRA pleading was filed, that your name had come up repeatedly in connection with Jeffrey Epstein’s abuse of minors, correct? . . . A. Let me answer that question. I am aware that never before 2014, end of December, was it ever, ever alleged that I had acted in any way inappropriately with regard to Virginia [Giuffre], that I ever touched her, that I ever met her, that Ihad ever been with her. I was completely aware ofthat. There had never been any allegation. She claims under oath that she told you that secretly in 2011, but you have produced no notes of any such conversation. You, of course, are a witness to this allegation and will be deposed asa witness to this allegation. I believe it is an entirely false allegation that she told you in 2011 that she had had any sexual contact with me. I think she’s lying through her teeth when she says that. And I doubt that your notes will reveal any such information. But if she did tell you that, she would be absolutely, categorically lying. So Iam completely aware that never, until the lies were put in a legal pleading at the end of December 2014, it was never alleged that I had any sexual contact with Virginia Roberts. I know that it was alleged that I was a witness to Jeffrey Epstein's alleged abuse and that was false. 1 was never a witness to any of Jeffrey Epstein's sexual abuse. And I wrote that to you, something that you have falsely denied. And I stand on the record. The record is clear that I have categorically denied I was ever a witness to any abuse, that | ever saw Jeffrey Epstein abusing anybody. And -- and the very idea that I would stand and talk to Jeffrey Epstein while he was receiving oral sex from Virginia Roberts, which she swore to under oath, is so outrageous, so preposterous, that even David Boies said he couldn’t believe it was true. MS. McCAWLEY: I object. I object. I'm not going to allow you to reveal any conversations that happened in the context of a settlement discussion. THE WITNESS: Does she have standing? HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010768

Edwards, Bradley vs. Dershowitz Case No.: CACE 15-000072 Edwards and Cassells Response to Dershowitz's Motion to Determine Confidentiality of Court Records Page 13 of 20 MS. McCAWLEY: I have a standing objection and, I’m objecting again. I'm not going to THE WITNESS: No, no, no. Does she have standing in this deposition? MR. SCOTT: Let's take a break for a minute, okay? THE WITNESS: I’m not sure she has standing. MR. SCAROLA: Are we finished with the speech? MR. SCOTT: No. If he -- MR. SCAROLA: I'd like him to finish the speech so that we can get to my question and then we can take a break. A. So the question -- the answer to your question is -- MR. SIMPSON: Wait a minute. Wait a minute. Wait a minute. Please don't disclose something that she has a right to raise that objection if she wants to. MR. SCOTT: Exactly. Deposition of Alan Dershowitz (Oct. 15, 2015) at 93-95 (attached as Exhibit 1); see also Deposition of Alan Dershowitz (Oct. 16, 2016) (attached as Exhibit 2) (also containing discussion of Ms. Giuffre’s affidavit). The Court should be aware that within approximately two hours of this exchange, Ms. McCawley. (David Boies’ law partner) released a statement on his behalf, which stated that Dershowitz was misrepresenting what happened: “Because the discussions that Mr. Boies had with Mr. Dershowitz were expressly privileged settlement discussions, Mr. Boies will not, at least at this time, describe what was actually said. However, Mr. Boies does state that Mr. HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010769

Edwards, Bradley vs. Dershowitz Case No.: CACE 15-000072 Edwards and Cassells Response to Dershowitz's Motion to Determine Confidentiality of Court Records Page 14 of 20 Dershowitz description of what was said is not true.” Statement of Ms. McCawley on Behalf of David Boies (Oct. 15, 2015). More broadly, the Court can readily see from this passage how Dershowitz is willing to inject into the record a part of Ms. Giuffre’s affidavit whenever it serves his purpose — and, indeed, to characterize the part of the affidavit as “preposterous.” But then he asks this Court to place the underlying affidavit under seal, so that the Edwards and Cassell stand accused having filed a “preposterous” affidavit without anyone being able to assess the validity of Dershowitz’s attack. Dershowitz has referred to the court records that he now wishes to have the Court declare confidential not only in his deposition, but also in his widely-broadcast media attacks on Edwards and Cassell. For example, Dershowitz appeared on the British Broadcasting Corporation (the BBC) and was asked about the allegations: Well, first of all they were made in court papers that they don’t even ask for a hearing to try to prove them. They put them in court papers in order to immunize themselves from any consequences from a defamation suit. The story is totally made up, completely out of whole cloth. I don’t know this woman. I was not at the places at the times. It is part of a pattern of made up stories against prominent people and world leaders. And the lawyers in recent statement challenged me to deny the allegations under oath. I am doing that. I am denying them under oath, thus subjecting me to a perjury prosecution were I not telling the truth. 7 am now challenging them to have their client put these charges under oath and for them to put them under oath. I am also challenging them to repeat them outside of the context of court papers so that I can sue them for defamation. .. . And I will prove beyond any doubt not only that the story is totally false, but it was knowingly false: that the lawyers and the client conspired together to create a false story. That is why I am moving for their disbarment in challenges to be provided to the disciplinary committee. BBC Radio 4 - Sarah Montague (Jan. 3, 2015) (http:/Avww.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02g7qbc). HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010770

Edwards, Bradley vs. Dershowitz Case No.: CACE 15-000072 Edwards and Cassells Response to Dershowitz's Motion to Determine Confidentiality of Court Records Page 15 of 20 Similarly, Dershowitz appeared on NBC’s Today Show the morning after Edwards and Cassell made a filing for Ms. Giuffre, to say that the Edwards and Cassell — and Ms. Giuffre — were all “lying” in the court documents: Question from Savannah Guthrie: /n legal papers from the lawyers, they say you’ve had, in fact, the opportunity to be deposed. Answer from Alan Dershowitz: They’re lying. They’re lying. Question: They show letters in which they offered to depose you. Answer: And they didn’t show my letters in response saying, (a), if you ask me about my legal relationship with Epstein and I’ll be happy to answer. . . . And I responded that I would be happy to be deposed if you could give me any indication that I would be a relevant witness .... They will be proved — all of them [i.e., Cassell, Edwards, and Ms. Giuffre] — to be categorically lying and making up this story. And it will bea terrible thing for rape victims. ... We [Epstein and Dershowitz] had an academic relationship. I was never in the presence of a single, young, underaged woman. When I was with him, it was with prominent scientists, prominent academics. And they’re just — again — lying about this. I never saw him doing anything improper. I was not a participant. I was not a witness. Today Show, Jan. 22, 2015 (emphases added). As another example, in Miami Herald, Dershowitz called the Joinder Motion that he seeks to have sealed “the sleaziest /egal document1 have ever seen. They [Edwards and Cassell] manipulated a young, suggestible woman who was interested in money. This is a disbarrable offense, and they will be disbarred. They will rue the day they ever made this false charge against me” — i.e., Edwards and Cassell will “rue the day” they ever filed the Joinder Motion. Miami Herald (Jan. 3, 2015). HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010771

Edwards, Bradley vs. Dershowitz Case No.: CACE 15-000072 Edwards and Cassells Response to Dershowitz's Motion to Determine Confidentiality of Court Records Page 16 of 20 Most remarkably, Dershowitz took the public airwaves to represent that he wanted all of the information surrounding the allegations to “be made public,” while implying that Edwards and Cassell had something to hide. For example, on the BBChe claimed that he wanted“everything to be made public”: Q: Would you encourage that it now be made public? A: Of course, of course. / want everything to be made public. I want every bit of evidence in this case to be made public. I want every allegation to be made public. | want to know who else she’s accused of these horrible crimes. We know that she accused Bill Clinton of being on Jeffrey Epstein’s island and participating in sex orgy with underage girls. The records of the Secret Service will prove that President Clinton never set foot on that island. So that she lied. Now it’s possible to have a case of mistaken identification with somebody like me. It’s impossible to have a case of mistaken identification with Bill Clinton. My only feeling is that if she has lied about me, which I know to an absolute certainty she has, she should not be believed about anyone else. She’s lied clearly about me, she’s lied clearly about Bill Clinton. We know that. We know that she’s lied about other public figures, including a former prime minister and others who she claims to have participated in sexual activities with. So I think it must be presumed that all of her allegations against Prince Andrew are false as well. I think he [Prince Andrew] should clear the air as well. If you’re squeaky clean and if you have never done anything like this, you must fight back with all the resources available to you. And that’s what I will do. I will not rest or stop until the world understands no only that I had nothing to do with any of this, but that she deliberately, with the connivance of her lawyer, lawyers, made up this story willfully and knowingly. BBC Radio 4 - Sarah Montague (Jan. 3, 2015) (http://www.bbe.co.uk/programmes/p02¢7qbc). In another widely-broadcast interview on CNN, Dershowitz implied that there is no evidence supporting the allegations against him: HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010772

Edwards, Bradley vs. Dershowitz Case No.: CACE 15-000072 Edwards and Cassells Response to Dershowitz's Motion to Determine Confidentiality of Court Records Page 17 of 20 Ask them [Edwards and Cassell] if they have any evidence ... . They’re doing it for money. She’s getting money for having sold her story. She wants to sell the book. They’re trying to get into this lawsuit. They see a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. They’re [Edwards and Cassell] prepared to lie, cheat, and steal. These are unethical lawyers. This is Professor Cassell who shouldn’t be allowed near a student. This is Professor Cassell, who is a former federal judge, thank God he no longer wears a robe. He is essentially a crook. He is essentially somebody who’s distorted the legal profession. . . . Why would he charge a person with a sterling reputation for 50 years on the basis of the word alone of a woman who is serial liar, who has lied about former Prime Ministers, former Presidents, has lied demonstrably. CNN Live (with Hala Gorani) (January 5, 2015). Of course, by placing “the evidence” in this case under seal, Dershowitz will be free to continue to try and insinuate that Edward and Cassell —and their client, Ms. Giuffre — had no evidence supporting the allegations against him, even though a mountain evidence strongly support Ms. Giuffre’s allegations. See Deposition of Paul Cassell (Oct. 16, 2015) at 61-117 (Exhibit 3); see also Depo of Pual Cassell (Oct. 17, 2013) (Exhibit 4). CONCLUSION The Court should deny Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff Alan Dershowitz’s motion to place documents regarding Ms. Giuffre’s allegations against him under seal. I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was sent via E-Serve to all Counsel on the attached list, this 23°°° day of November, 2015. /s/ Jack Scarola Jack Scarola Florida Bar No.: 169440 Attorney E-Mail(s): [email protected] and [email protected] Primary E-Mail: [email protected] Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A. 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard West Palm Beach, Florida 33409 Phone:(561) 686-6300 Fax:(561) 383-9451 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010773

Edwards, Bradley vs. Dershowitz Case No.: CACE 15-000072 Edwards and Cassells Response to Dershowitz's Motion to Determine Confidentiality of Court Records Page 18 of 20 COUNSEL LIST SEAN D. REYES Utah Attorney General By: JONI J. JONES JOEL A. FERRE Assistant Utah Attorneys General Bradley J. Edwards FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. 425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Telephone (954) 524-2820 Facsimile (954) 524-2822 E-mail: [email protected] And Paul G. Cassell Pro Hac Vice Motion Pending S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah 383 S. University St. Salt Lake City, UT 84112 Telephone:801-585-5202 Facsimile:801-585-6833 E-Mail:[email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiffs Bradley J. Edwards and Paul G. Cassell Thomas Emerson Scott, Jr., Esquire [email protected]; [email protected] Cole Scott & Kissane P.A. 9150 S Dadeland Boulevard, Suite 1400 Miami, FL 33156 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010774

Edwards, Bradley vs. Dershowitz Case No.: CACE 15-000072 Edwards and Cassells Response to Dershowitz's Motion to Determine Confidentiality of Court Records Page 19 of 20 Phone: (305)-350-5329 Fax: (305)-373-2294 Attorneys for Defendant Richard A. Simpson (pro hac vice) [email protected] Mary E. Borja (pro hac vice) [email protected] Ashley E. Eiler (pro hac vice) [email protected] WILEY REIN LLP 1776 K St. NW Washington, DC 20006 Phone: (202) 719-7000 Fax: (202) 719-7049 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010775

Edwards, Bradley vs. Dershowitz Case No.: CACE 15-000072 Edwards and Cassells Response to Dershowitz's Motion to Determine Confidentiality of Court Records Page 20 of 20 COUNSEL LIST Sigrid Stone McCawley, Esquire [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Boies Schiller & Flexner, LLP 401 E Las Olas Boulevard., Suite 1200 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (954)-356-0011 Attorneys for Alan M.Dershowitz, Esquire Thomas Emerson Scott, Jr., Esquire [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Cole Scott & Kissane P.A. 9150 S Dadeland Boulevard, Suite 1400 Miami, FL 33156 Phone: (305)-350-5329/Fax: (305)-373-2294 Attorneys for Alan M.Dershowitz, Esquire Bradley J. Edwards, Esquire staff. [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Farmer Jaffe Weissing Edwards Fistos & Lehrman, P.L. 425 N Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (954)-524-2820/Fax: (954)-524-2822 Attorneys for Alan M.Dershowitz, Esquire Kenneth A. Sweder, Esquire [email protected] Sweder & Ross, LLP 131 Oliver Street Boston, MA 02110 Phone: (617)-646-4466/Fax: (617)-646-4470 Attorneys for Alan M.Dershowitz, Esquire Ashley Eiler, Esquire [email protected] Mary E. Borja, Esquire [email protected] Richard A. Simpson, Esquire [email protected] Wiley Rein, LLP 1776 K Street NW Washington, DC 20006 Phone: (202)-719-4252/Fax: (202)-719-7049 Attorneys for Alan M.Dershowitz, Esquire Joni J. Jones, Esquire [email protected] Assistant Utah Attorney General 160 E3008 Salt Lake City, UT 84114 Phone: (801)-366-0100/Fax: (801)-366-0101 Attorneys for Paul Cassell HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010776

Exhibit 1 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010777

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SEVENTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO.: CACE 15-000072 BRADLEY J. EDWARDS and PAUL G. CASSELL, , vs. ALAN M. Plaintiffs, DERSHOWITZ, Defendant. VIDEOTAPE DEPOSITION OF ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ VOLUME 1 Pages 1 through 179 Thursday, October 15, 2015 9:31 a.m. ~- 4:13 p.m. Cole Scott & Kissane 110 Southeast 6th Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida Stenographically Reported By: Kimberly Fontalvo, RPR, CLR Realtime Systems Administrator HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010778

10 11 12 Le 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 23 people that abused Virginia? As I told you I never asked her the question. 11:36:21 Q. Are you aware that years before December 11:36:48 of 2014, when the CVRA pleading was filed, that your name had come up repeatedly in connection with Jeffrey Epstein's abuse of minors, correct? MR. SCOTT: Objection, form, overly broad. 11:37:16 A. Let me answer that question. I am aware T1237:17 that never before 2014, end of December, was it ever, ever alleged that I had acted in any way inappropriately with regard to Virginia Roberts, that I ever touched her, that I ever met her, that I had ever been with her. I was completely aware of that. There had never been any allegation. She claims under oath that she told you 11:37:48 that secretly in 2011, but you have produced no notes of any such conversation. You, of course, are a witness to this allegation and will be deposed as a witness to this allegation. I believe it is an entirely false allegation that she told you in 2011 that she had had any sexual contact with me. I think she's lying through her teeth when she says that. And I doubt that your notes will reveal any such information. But if she did tell you that, she would be 11:38:24 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010779

10 LL 12 13 14 LS 16 17 18 19 20 21 ae 23 24 ZS absolutely, categorically lying. 94 So I am completely aware that never, until the lies were put in a legal pleading at the end of December 2014, it was never alleged that I had any sexual contact with Virginia Roberts. I know that it was alleged that I was a 11:38:46 witness to Jeffrey Epstein's alleged abuse and that was false. I was never a witness to any of Jeffrey Epstein's sexual abuse. something that you have falsely denied. on the record. The record is clear that I have And I wrote that to you, categorically denied I was ever a witness to any abuse, that I ever saw Jeffrey Epstein abusing anybody. And -- and the very idea that I would stand and talk to Jeffrey Epstein while he was And I stand 11:39:18 receiving oral sex from Virginia Roberts, which she ‘ swore to under oath, is so outrageous, so preposterous, that even David Boies said he couldn't believe it was true. MS. McCAWLEY: I object. I object. not going to allow you to reveal any I'm 11:39:40 conversations that happened in the context of a settlement discussion. THE WITNESS: Does she have standing? 11:39:46 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010780

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Zz £8 24 25 MS. McCAWLEY: I have a standing objection and, I'm objecting again. I'm not going to -- THE WITNESS: No, no, no. Does she have standing in this deposition? MR. SCOTT: Let's take a break for a minute, okay? THE WITNESS: I'm not sure she has standing. MR. SCAROLA: Are we finished with the speech? MR. SCOTT: No. If he -- MR. SCAROLA: I'd like him to finish the speech so that we can get to my question and then we can take a break. A. So the question -- the answer to your question is -- MR. SIMPSON: Wait a minute. Wait a minute. Wait a minute. Please don't disclose something that she has a right to raise that objection if she wants to. MR. SCOTT: Exactly. THE WITNESS: Okay. MR. SCOTT: Ask your question. MR. SWEDER: Maybe you want to read back the last couple of sentences. HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010781 lil: li: 11 11: lil: li: 11: 11: li: 11: ll: 11: ll: 39: 39: 239: 39: 39: 39: 39: 40: 40: 40: 40: 40: 40: 47 49 epi 54 57 58 ao 02 04 13 14 17 20 95

Exhibit 2 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010782

180 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SEVENTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO.: CACE 15-000072 BRADLEY J. EDWARDS and PAUL G. CASSELL, , Plaintiffs, DERSHOWITZ, Defendant. CONTINUED VIDEOTAPE DEPOSITION OF ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ VOLUME 2 Pages 180 through 333 Friday, October 16, 2015 9:18 a.m. - 12:26 p.m. Cole Scott & Kissane 110 Southeast 6th Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida Stenographically Reported By: Kimberly Fontalvo, RPR, CLR Realtime Systems Administrator www. phippsreporting.com (888) 811-3408 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010783

APPEARANCES: On behalf of Plaintiffs: SEARCY, DENNEY, SCAROLA BARNHART & SHIPLEY, P.A. 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard West Palm Beach, Florida 33402-3626 BY: JACK SCAROLA, ESQ. [email protected] On behalf of Defendant: COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, P.A. Dadeland Centre H - Suite 1400 9150 South Dadeland Boulevard Miami, Florida 33156 BY: THOMAS EMERSON SCOTT, JR., ESQ. [email protected] BY: STEVEN SAFRA, ESQ. (Via phone) [email protected] —-and-- SWEDER & ROSS, LLP 131 Oliver Street Boston, MA 02110 BY: KENNETH A. SWEDER, ESQ. [email protected] --and-- WILEY, REIN 17769 K Street NW Washington, DC 20006 BY: RICHARD A. SIMPSON, ESQ. [email protected] BY: NICOLE A. RICHARDSON, ESQ. [email protected] INDEX Examination Page VOLUME 2 (Pages 180 - 333) Direct By Mr. Scarola 184 Certificate of Oath 330 Certificate of Reporter 331 Read and Sign Letter to Witness 332 Errata Sheet (forwarded upon execution) 333 PLAINTIFF EXHIBITS No. Page Television Interview Transcript 193 Except from Deposition of Alan M. 193 Dershowitz Photograph - 8x10 - Color 194 Photograph - 8x10 - Color 197 Flight Log Information Sheet 198 Composite - Flight logs 240 Composite - Flight manuals 240 Photograph - 8x10 - Color 305 Composite - Calendar entries 306 10 Composite - Calendar entries 307 1] Composite - Calendar entries 307 12 Composite - Calendar entries 307 APPEARANCES (Continued): On behalf of Jeffrey Epstein: DARREN K. INDYKE, PLLC 575 Lexington Ave., 4th Fl. New York, New York BY: DARREN K. INDYKE, ESQ. (Via phone) On behalf of Virginia Roberts: BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER, LLP 401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Ste. 1200 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 BY: SIGRID STONE MCCAWLEY, ESQ. [email protected] ALSO PRESENT: Joni Jones, Utah Attorney General Office Travis Gallagher, Videographer 184 VIDEOGRAPHER: Going on the record. This is day two of Alan Dershowitz's deposition. The date is October 16, 2015, and the time is approximately 9:18 a.m. MR. SCAROLA: Would you please reswear the witness. THE COURT REPORTER: Would you raise your right hand, please? Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? THE WITNESS: Yes. Thereupon: ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows: DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. Mr. Dershowitz, what is rhetorical hyperbole? A. Rhetorical means verbal and hyperbole means exaggeration. Q. Something other than the truth, correet? A. Truth -- MR. SCOTT: Objection, form, relevancy. 2 (Pages 181 to 184) www.phippsreporting.com (888) 811-3408 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010784

Oo OAT HH PW nN NNN NNN PP BP PP BP oe oe oe oe “Ud WN EF Ow ON AU eB WN HO Oo Own un @ Wn NNNNNNFRP RP RPP EP BP BP BB ORWNHEP COvwWAaIYHA UY BWNHO A. Truth has many, many meanings and is a continuum. The Supreme Court has held that rhetorical hyperbole cannot be the basis, for example, of perjury prosecutions or generally of a defamation prosecution. So it depends on the context. You might just look at the dictionary and probably get a variety of definitions for it. BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. Well, what I'm concerned about, Mr. Dershowitz, is not a dictionary definition. I want to know what your understanding of rhetorical hyperbole is. And do you agree that pursuant to your understanding of rhetorical hyperbole, it is an exaggeration beyond the facts? MR. SCOTT: Objection, argumentative and compound, three questions. A. No -- MR. SCOTT: You can answer. A. -- I would not agree with that definition. BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. Okay. Then define it for us, if you would, please. A. I think J have already. oOo Onwa nu BW DdD NNNNNP PEF PP BP Pe PB BWNFP Ow OI HU BwWnNR OO 187 transcript of the interview? We'd like to see it. MR. SCAROLA: That's exactly what I gave you, the photocopy. MR. SCOTT: We're doing it right now. Maybe we can move on and come back then. MR. SCAROLA: No, I would like to proceed. MR. SCOTT: Then let's stop until I get a copy of it. Because he -- | want -- MR. SCAROLA: J don't think that's necessary because your client has told us that he has a superb memory and one of the things | would like to know is what he's able to recall. If he needs to refresh his memory, the transcripts will be here in just a moment, but I don't want to delay going forward. MR. SCOTT: Do you need the transcript to refresh your memory? THE WITNESS: Well, I have no memory of what specifically | said on a particular day in a particular interview. MR. SCOTT: Since you have a copy in front of him, why don't you just show him your copy then? Read the -- ask your question and let him read it. 186 Q. I'm sorry, I missed the definition. Could you tell us what rhetorical hyperbole is? MR. SCOTT: Objection, repetitious. He's done it. A. Why don't we just read back my answer. BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. Because I didn't understand it, so I would like you to try to give us a direct response to that question if you're able te. A. | will repeat exactly what I said. A rhetorical means verbal and hyperbole means some exaggeration of the facts for political or other reasons, but generally it is truthful in a literal sense but perhaps -- it all depends on context. And if you tell me the context in which I used it, I will be happy to describe what | meant in that context. But } don’t think you can really answer a question about what two words put together mean without understanding the context. Q. Okay. Well, we're going to talk about some context. Do you recall having been interviewed on CNN Tonight on January 5, 2015? A. have no current recollection of -- MR. SCOTT: Do you have a copy of the BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. Do you recall having been interviewed on CNN Tonight by Don Lemon? A. Yes, I do. Q. Do you recall having been interviewed on CNN Tonight by Don Lemon in carly January of 2015, where you spoke about matters that have become the subject of this litigation? A. Yes, Ido. Q. Did you make the following statement during the course of that interview: "As to the airplanes, there are manifests that will prove beyond any doubt that I was never on a private airplane with this woman or any other underage girl"? MR. SCOTT: You need to see the transcript? THE WITNESS: No. No. A. That is a truthful statement. | would repeat it right now. I've reviewed the manifests. First, 1 know I was never on the airplane with any underage woman. I know that for a fact. | have absolutely no doubt in my mind about that. And the records that I have reviewed confirm that. They have Virginia Roberts on a number of 3 (Pages 185 to 188) www.phippsreporting.com (888) 811-3408 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010785

OIA oO bw WN 189 airplane flights with Jeffrey Epstein. They have me ona number of flights, none -- let me emphasize, none within the relevant time period, none within the relevant time period. That is, there are no manifests that have me on Jeffrey Epstein's airplane during the time that Virginia Roberts claims to have -- falsely claims to have had sex with me. So, yes, not only recall making that statement, but | repeat it here today. And it ts absolutely true. And it just confirms what I know, and that is that Virginia Roberts made up the entire story. BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. Your statement -- MR. SCOTT: What page are you reading from? MR. SCAROLA: Page 5. Q. Your statement was that you were never on a private airplane with this woman, which I assume was a reference to Virginia Roberts, correct? It is, yes. Or any other underage girl? . That's right. All right. How many times -- Well, let me be very clear. [have no 190 idea who was in the front cabin of the airplane with the pilots. Obviously what | intended to say and what I say here now is I never saw an underaged person on an airplane. Now, when | -- when I flew with Jeffrey Epstein to the launch, my recollection is that there may have been a couple on the plane with their child who was going to see the launch. But that was certainly not the context in which | made the statement. I never saw any underage, young person who would be the subject or object of any improper sexual activities. Had I seen Jeffrey Epstein ever in the presence of an underage woman in a context that suggested sexuality, | would have, A, left the scene; B, reported it; and, C, never had any further contact with Jeffrey Epstein. Q. You have also made the statement that you were never on a private airplane with any underage women or any young women, correct? A. The context was underage women in a sexual context. If it was a -- you know, a four-year-old child being carried by her mother, that would not be included in what | intended to say. Q. Your sworn testimony yesterday, according ow AO he WN Ro RF Oo oO 4,971. to the transcription, the official transcription of that testimony, was that, quote: "Let me emphasize that the manifests that do exculpate me do not shew me flying with Virginia Roberts, they do not show me flying with any young women." ‘That was the testimony you gave under oath. Do you stand by that testimony today? A. The manifests that | saw corroborate my own memory -- my own memory is as clear as could be -- that I never saw any inappropriately aged, underaged women on any airplane to my knowledge that were visible to me at any time that I flew. That is my testimony, yes. Q. Well, that's not a response to the question that J asked. Is it your testimony today that you never flew on a private airplane with, quote, “any young women"? MR. SCOTT: Objection, form. A. By young women, I obviously meant in that context underage women. And underage women in the context of sexuality. And, yes, I -- I stand by that statement. BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. Allright. So your -- your clarification wow oy DA WH & WY NNN NN KD HPP PB Be oP ee oe OE Oe WNP OM OY HD GH WN FO 192 of your earlier testimony is that you never saw any young women in a sexual context? A. That's not clarification. I think that's what | initially said. That's what | initially intended. And that's the way any reasonable -- any reasonable person would interpret what my original testimony was. So | don't believe my original testimony required any clarification. Q. So what you meant to convey by the statement that you made when you said you never flew with any underage girl or any young women was you never fiew with any underage girl or young women in a sexual context? MR. SCOTT: Objection, form. BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. Is that correct? A. Let me simply repeat the fact and that is, to my knowledge, | never flew on an airplane or was ever in the presence on an airplane with any underage woman who would be somebody who might be in a sexual context. | say that only to eliminate the possibility that some four-year-old was on the lap ofa mother or somebody was on the airplane with family members. But, no, | do not recail -- and I'm very 4 (Pages 189 to 192) www.phippsreporting.com (888) 811-3408 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010786

wo omy num WN NN NN NH eH eH ee ee pope PBWNPF OW’O NH UH BW NH O 193 firm about this -- being on an airplane with anybody who I believed could be the subject of Jeffrey Epstein or anyone else's improper sexual activities. MR. SCAROLA: Allright. Let's mark the transcript that we've been referring to as Exhibit Number |, please. That's the transcript of the television interviews that we'll be discussing. (Thereupon, marked as Plaintiff Exhibit 1) MR. SCOTT: This is actually 2, right? We had one yesterday, an article from the British newspaper? MR. SCAROLA: No. It was not marked as an exhibit. This is the first exhibit that's been marked. MR. SCOTT: No, I know that, but I thought we were going to mark that one. Maybe I was -- lL asked for that. Okay. It was an answer and counterclaim about the allegation shown to the witness. MR. SCAROLA: And Exhibit Number 2 will be the transcript from yesterday's proceedings that I have just referenced. (Thereupon, marked as Plaintiff wo OADM @ WD NNN NN D HY HH HE eH HY ee BE mP@ WN FH OO WA HD i B@ WN FO A. I don’t remember that I flew with her or not. I may have. But I don't recall necessarily. But I did meet -- I remember meeting a woman named Tatiana. This does not look like Tatiana, like the woman I met. Q. Okay. So that's a -- that's a different Tatiana? A. No, I don't know. MR. SCOTT: Objection, form, argumentative. A. [have no idea. I do not recognize this woman. She's not familiar to me at all. I can tell you this: Without any doubt, | never met anybody dressed like this on any airplane or in the presence of Jeffrey Epstein or in any context -- BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. Did she have -- A. -- Telated to this case. Q. -- more clothes on or less clothes on when you met her? MR. SCOTT: Objection, form. He said he never met her. Misrepresent -- BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. When you met the woman that you're 194 Exhibit 2.) MR. SCOTT: You don't have a copy of that, do you, of the transcript? MR. SCAROLA: No. Got sent to you. I assume you have it. BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. I'm going to hand you what we'll now mark as Exhibit Number 3. (Thereupon, marked as Plaintiff Exhibit 3.) MR. SCOTT: There's no question. MR. SWEDER: Yes. BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. Do you recognize that young woman, Mr. Dershowitz? . No. . Never saw her? . Not that I know of. . Never flew on an private airplane with . Not that I know of. . Do you recognize the name Tatiana? I do recall that Jeffrey Epstein had a friend named Tatiana. Q. That you flew with? wow od DM bb WN NNNNN NP PPP BP ee oe eb mee WD YF CO WO DTD MW &@ WY NY FF OO 196 referencing, did she have more clothes on or less clothes on than that woman? A. Every woman that I met in the presence of Jeffrey Epstein was properly dressed, usually in suits and dresses and -- and appropriately covered up. I never met any women in the context of Jeffrey Epstein who were dressed anything like this. Q. Would you agree that that is a young woman in that photograph? A. [have no idea what her age is. Q. So you don't know whether she was underage or overage or a young woman or not a young woman? A. [don't -- MR. SCOTT: Objection, form. A. -- know this woman, so I have no idea how old a woman in a picture is. She could be -- she could be 30. She could be 25. I have no idea. BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. Or she could be 15 or 16? A. I don't think so. Q. But you don't know? A. This doesn't -- well, 1 don't know how old you are. This does not strike me -- Q. Old enough to know that — MR. SCOTT: You're cutting -- 5 (Pages 193 to 196) www. phippsreporting.com (888) 811-3408 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010787

wo owmr nn &@ WN NNNNN NPP PE PPP BPE Ue WN OCW AIHA WHR OO woman nA Mm FF WN NNNNN DN BH HB BH eB Roe RB Oe WNH OW MONA U BW NH OO BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. -- that's a young woman. MR. SCOTT: Objection. You're cutting the witness off. You're not letting him finish. A. This looks like a picture out of a Playboy or Penthouse magazine. It does not look to me like a person who is under the age of 16 or 17 or 18. But I don't think you can tell anything from the picture. I think you can tell much more from meeting somebody and being with them and having a conversation with them. MR. SCAROLA: Let's mark this photograph, if we could, as Exhibit Number 4. (Thereupon, marked as Plaintiff Exhibit 4.) BY MR. SCAROLA: . Q. Does Exhibit Number 4 help you at all to recognize this young woman? A. I've never -- | have no -- no recollection of this young woman at all. Q. Allright. Would you describe for us, please, the Tatiana that you flew with Jeffrey Epstein on November 17, 2005? A. First, | want to emphasize that that's three years later than any of the issues involved in to OWN HA mH BW NN NNNNNN PF EP Be Be Be eH Oe mF WwW NHN FF CO ODO Oo WH HH FP WwW NHN HF OO 198 this case. | have no recollection of flying with this woman. | saw the name Tatiana on a manifest. And my recoliection of Tatiana -- | have no recollection of flying with her, but my recollection of Tatiana is that she was a serious, mid 20s woman friend of Jeffrey Epstein, who I may have met on one or two or three occasions when he was with her in -- perhaps at Harvard University where he was meeting with academics and scholars, or perhaps -- I think that's probably the context where -- where she might have been. Q. But you never flew with her? A. Thave no recollection of flying with her. Q. Okay. Well, let me sec if this helps to refresh your recollection, Mr. Dershowitz. MR. SCAROLA: Let's mark this as Exhibit Number 5, please. THE WITNESS: Uh-huh, yes. (Thereupon, marked as Plaintiff Exhibit 5.) BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. De you see that the name of the woman in the photographs I have handed you is Tatiana Kovylina, K-O-V-Y-L-I-N-A, a Victoria Secrets model? The photographs, sir, look at the ow nmnn nm P&P WN 199 photographs. The photographs identify the woman as Tatiana Kovylina, correct? A. Yes, but -- MR. SCOTT: Mr. Dershowitz, take your time -- THE WITNESS: Yeah. MR. SCOTT: -- review the exhibits. Don't be rushed by Mr. Scarola. A. Yes, it's a different -- different spelling of the name. The Tatiana on the manifest is spelled T-A-I-T-A-N-N-A. The Tatiana in the photograph is T-A-T-I-N -- LA-N-A. I have no idea whether -- BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. The last name -- A. -- they are the same person. Q. -- is the same, Kovylina, right? A. There's no last name. Q. Well, read down a little bit further, if you would, Mr. Dershowitz. A. You mean as toa different flight? Q. Yes, sir. Identifying the return flight for the same Tatiana. A. [have no idea that it's a return flight. I have nothing on the record that suggests that it's 200 areturn flight. And it has different people on it. So I have no reason to believe it's a return flight. Q. Is the last -- the question that I asked you, Mr. Dershowitz, is: Is the last name spelled exactly the same as the last name is spelled in the two photographs I have shown you? A. Let me look. So, on the 20th of November -- Q. Is the last name -- MR. SCOTT: Whoa, whoa -- BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. -- spelled the same way on both the flight log and the two photographs I have shown you? A. On-- you mean on a flight log that I was not on the flight? Is that right? You're talking about a flight log that I was not on the flight, right? Q. That flight log shows you on multiple flights, does it not? A. It shows me not on that flight. It shows me on a number of flights, but not on that flight. MR. SCOTT: What's the date of the flights? THE WITNESS: The date of that flight is -- looks like November 20th, 2005, more 6 (Pages 197 to 200) www.phippsreporting.com (888) 811-3408 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010788

ov On KD in BW DHF ow on nm PF WwW DH FH NNNNN NER PE BR PP Be BE OBWNP OM OYA MN A WNKH OO than three years after Virginia Roberts left for -- BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. Mr. Dershowitz -- MR. SCOTT: You're cutting the witness off. MR. SCAROLA: He's not answering my question, Tom. MR. SCOTT: Well -- MR. SCAROLA: I want to know whether the last name is spelled the same or it isn’t spelled the same on the flight tog marked as an exhibit and on the photographs. That's a very direct question. It calls for a very direct yes or no response. And this witness has demonstrated a clear refusal to respond directly to direct questions, which will result, when we resume this deposition, in our requesting that the Court appoint a special master so that this deposition doesn't take two weeks to complete. MR. SCOTT: You know, Mr. Scarola, that's a nice speech and I appreciate it. MR. SCAROLA: Thank you. MR. SCOTT: I don't agree with your 203 BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. Is the last name on the photograph spelled exactly the same way as the last name on the flight log? A. If you're talking about a flight log that 1 was not on that flight, the answer is yes. Q. Allright. Thank you very nwch, sir. Now, that flight log also shows you flying repeatedly in the company of a woman named Tatiana, correct? A. I've only seen one reference to Tatiana on November 17. If you want to show me any other references, I'd be happy to look at them. Q. Allright, sir. Thank you. Let's go back to the — MR. SCOTT: Are we done with this exhibit? MR. SCAROLA: We are done with the exhibit. MR. SCOTT: Okay. Then let's collect the exhibits so that we don't have a big -- then we'll turn them over to the court reporter to keep safekeeping. There you go, young lady, don't lose those, don't get them wet. And we'll proceed. characterization. And if you recall, months ago I suggested a special master for this deposition, for your clients’ depositions and for Virginia Roberts’ and your response to me was: I'll consider it, I won't pay for it. If your client wants to pay for it -- so basically you blew me off. So, I appreciate you finally come around. And your clients. MR. SCAROLA: Your client's misconduct has clearly convinced me, having now considered it, that it is absolutely necessary. MR. SCOTT: Okay. Now -- BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. So new could I get an answer to my question ~~ MR. SCOTT: Now that we have -- BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. -- whether the last name on the flight log is spelled exactly the same way as the last name in the photographs? MR. SCOTT: Now that all the lawyers' speeches are done, read the question back and the witness will answer it. MR. SCAROLA: | will repeat the question. 204 BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. Did you state during the same interview, the CNN Don Lemon interview: "She has said that Bill Clinton was with her at an orgy on Jeffrey's island"? A. I did state that, yes. Q. Was that statement intended as fact, opinion, or was it intended as rhetorical hyperbole? MR. SCOTT: Do you understand the question? THE WITNESS: Yes, I do. A. It was a statement based on what I believed were the facts at the time I said them. Various newspapers and blogs had placed Bill Clinton on, quote, "orgy island" on -- in the presence of Jeffrey Epstein when there were orgies. And at the time | made that statement, | hada belief that she had accused Bill Clinton of participating or being -- as being a part of or an observer or -- or a Witness or a participant in orgies on what was called Jeffrey Epstein's orgy island. That was my state of belief, honest belief at the time I made that statement. BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. Yes, sir, And what I want to knew is what 7 (Pages 201 to 204) www. phippsreporting.com (888) 811-3408 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010789

wo oan nub wn pe NNN NNN FP BE BB Be Be Be oe oe oR “ob WN HE OO ON AUP WKH OO wo ON AU SP WN BH NNNNN NB BB BP Be BP BR Be BoB Ob wWwNH OHO MANA MN FP wWNH O 205 the source of that honest belief was? Identify any source that attributed to Virginia Roberts the statement that Bill Clinton was with her at an orgy on Jeffrey's island. A. We can provide you about, | think, 20 newspaper articles and blogs which certainly raise the implication that Bill Clinton had improperly participated in sexual activities on the island either as an observer or as a participant. The issue was raised on Sean Hannity's program. The headlines in various British media had suggested that. It's my belief that Virginia Roberts intended to convey that impression when she was trying to sell her story to various media, which she successfully sold her story to in Britain, that she wanted to keep that open as a possibility. And then when I firmly declared, based on my research, that Bill Clinton had almost certainly never been on that island, she then made a firm statement that she -- which was a -- which was a perjurious statement, a firm perjurious statement saying that although Bill Clinton had been with her on the island and had had dinner with her, the perjurious statement was that Bill Clinton had been —| oOo Ona HM WN NN NNN DN BP BE BBB Bp Be Be Be WM PwWwNF OwU MAAN AM BWNH OO Clinton on orgy island, things of that kind. I would be happy to provide them for you. I don't have them on the top of my head. Q. There's a big difference between saying that Bill Clinton was on Jeffrey's island and saying that Bill Clinton was at an orgy on Jeffrey's island, isn't there? MR. SCOTT: Objection -- BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. Do you recognize a distinction between those statements? MR. SCOTT: Form. A. I don't think that distinction was clearly drawn by the media. BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. I'm asking whether you recognize the distinction? A. Oh, I-- I certainly recognize a distinction. Q. Oh, so -- A. Let me finish. I certainly recognize a distinction between Bill Clinton being on the island, which I believe she perjuriously put in her affidavit, and Bill Clinton participating actively in an orgy. [also think it's a continuum. 206 on the istand with her. The lie was that she described in great detail a dinner with Bill Clinton and two underaged Russian women who were offered to Bill Clinton for sex but that Bill Clinton tumed down. So she then put in her affidavit that although -- perjuriously, although she had seen Bill Clinton on that island, she then stated that she had not had sex with Bill Clinton. To my knowledge, that was -- to my knowledge at least, that was the first time she stated that -- that she not had sex with Bill Clinton, She had certainly implied, or at least some of the media had inferred from her statements that she may very well have observed Bill Clinton in a sexually compromising position. So, when | made that statement to Don Lemon, I had a firm belief, based on reading newspaper accounts and blogs, that it was true. Q. Can you identify a single newspaper that attributed to Virginia Roberts the statement that Bill Clinton was with her at an orgy on Jeffrey's island? A. I think there -- I don't have them in my head right now. But I do recall reading headlines that talked about things like, sex slave places wan nu bs ww NNNNN NFP BB BP Be Be Be eB Wob WN OO MIAN WN FO And there is the possibility, which I don't personally believe to be true, that he was on the island. There was the possibility, which I don't believe to be true, that he was on the island when orgies were taking place. There was the possibility that he was on the island and observed an orgy, and there was the possibility that he was on the island and participated in an orgy. Newspapers picked up those stories. I'l give you an example of a newspaper that actually said that that she had placed or that ] was on the island and -- that I participated in an orgy along with Stephen Hawkings [sic.], the famous physicist from Cambridge University, that was a newspaper published in the Virgin Islands, which falsely claimed that I was at an orgy with Stephen Hawkings. So, many newspapers were suggesting, implying, and I inferred from reading those newspapers that that's what she had said to the media. If I was wrong about that based on subsequent information, | apologize. But 1 certainly, at the time I said it, believed it and made the statement in good faith in the belief that it was an honest statement. 8 (Pages 205 to 208) www.phippsreporting.com (888) 811-3408 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010790

wo own nM PF WN HE NNNNNN BPP BP BP BP ee ee oe URWNHEP OW AIK KH BWNHRE OO wo awd Am & Wn NM NM MN NY HY YE EF YP YP YP YP HY He ub WN HF OM OTH MH PW NF OO 209 Q. Okay. So you now are withdrawing the statement that you made that Virginia Roberts said that Bill Clinton was with her at an orgy on Jeffrey's island; that was wrong? A. 1 don't know whether she ever said that. I would not repeat that statement and have not repeated that statement based on her denial. As soon as she denied it, | never again made that statement and would not again make that statement. Q. You —- A. But I did reiterate the fact that she committed perjury when she said she was on the island with Bill Clinton. MR. SCAROLA: Move to strike the nonresponsive -- A. That was the perjurious statement. MR. SCAROLA: Move to strike the nonresponsive portions of the answer. BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. You have made a reference during that same CNN interview to this woman, referring to Virginia Roberts, having a criminal record? A. That's right. Q. Okay. What -- what is a criminal record? A. Well, the way | used the term is that she aI nm & WwW nN NNN NY ND FP BE BE EP HY BE BH eH eH me WN FEF OO WO MATH MH BF wWNY KY OO 211 Your client is doing everything he can to avoid giving direct answers to these questions. I would appreciate it if you would take a break, counsel your client that the speeches are not helpful to anyone, and especially not helpful to him. MR. SCOTT: If you want to take a break, I'll take a break and I will advise my client whatever I feel is appropriate, not what you instruct me to do. MR. SCAROLA: Okay. Well, if you think it might help at all in the progress of this deposition, then I do want to take a break. If you don't think taking a break would be helpful, I don't want to take a break. MR. SCOTT: Do you want to take a break or not? THE WITNESS: I'm going to leave it to your judgment. I'm happy to proceed -- MR. SCOTT: Okay. I'll be glad to take a break. MR. SCAROLA: Thank you. MR. SCOTT: | can't say -- MR. SCAROLA: Five minutes. MR. SCOTT: -- it will help you or 210 committed a crime and legal -- some kind of proceedings resulted from her committing a crime. The crime she committed was stealing money from a restaurant that she worked at while she was also working for Jeffrey Epstein. And it was my information that there was a criminal record of her theft. Q. How old was she at the time this alleged offense occurred? A. Idon't know. But old enough to be held criminally responsible in the State of Florida, to my knowledge. To my knowledge, | -- I recall a case where a 14-year-old boy was sentenced as an adult for -- MR. SCAROLA: Mr. Scott -- A, -- a Serious ~~ MR. SCAROLA: -- did my question ask anything about a 14-year-old boy? A. Youasked if -- MR. SCAROLA: Do we really need to listen to this? MR. SCOTT: You're asking questions, my client is providing his response. MR. SCAROLA: No, your client is not responding. Your client is filibustering. oy BDH KH ew WN HE 212 anything but -- MR. SCAROLA: I can understand that you don't -- you don’t have that control, but if there's any reasonable -- MR. SCOTT: You know, Counsel -- MR. SCAROLA: -- prospect that it might help, let's give it a try. MR. SCOTT: You know, I really don't appreciate the comments about my abilities as an attorney, like | don't have that control and things of nature. It really is -- MR. SCAROLA: I don't have the control either. MR. SCOTT: It's not -- MR. SCAROLA: I'm not trying to disparage you at all in any respect. I'm just suggesting that -- MR. SCOTT: Okay. MR. SCAROLA: -- there is reason to doubt that it will do any good. But I want to give ita try. MR. SCOTT: Okay. Fine. Thank you. MR. SCAROLA: Thank you. VIDEOGRAPHER: Going off the record. The time is approximately 9:49 a.m. 9 (Pages 209 to 212) www.phippsreporting.com (888) 811-3408 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010791

wo worn oO FW ND bP BM NM NNN BP BP ee ee BR BoB nk WD HEH OU DMI HU FWD HO 213 (Recess was held from 9:49 a.m. until 10:01 a.m.) VIDEOGRAPHER: Going back on the record. The time is approximately 10:01 a.m. MR. SCOTT: If you've finished your bagel, we're ready to proceed, J think, MR. SCAROLA: I think we are. I was actually ready to proceed a little bit earlier, but we'll proceed now. BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. Mr. Dershowitz, do you agree with the basic concept that one is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty? A. Yes. Q. Has Virginia Roberts ever been proven to be guilty of any crime at any time, anywhere, at any age? A. I don't know the answer to that question, but I do know that she was brought into the legal system for stealing money from her employer and | think it's fair to characterize that as her having a criminal record, yeah. Q. Te the extent that anyone might interpret your comment that Virginia Roberts was ever convicted of a crime, they would be drawing a false conclusion as far as you know, correct? oO on~ay nm FF WN RN NNR NN HE PP PP RP RP BP eB OHeWKHH OO MAH UM WHR O 214 | A. As far as } know, I don’t know of her having convicted of any crime. But I do know that she was proceeded against for having stolen money. And | don't think she contested that. I don’t think there's any dispute about the fact that she stole money and engaged in other crimes as well. Q. When did you find out about this alleged crime? A. As soon as the false allegation against me was made public, | got call after call after call from people telling me about Virginia Roberts, about your 22 clients. The calls just kept coming in because there was such outrage at this false allegation being directed against me. MR. SCAROLA: Move to strike the unresponsive portion of the answer. BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. You found out as soon as the CVRA complaint was -- the CVRA allegations referencing you were filed; is that correct? A. I didn't say that. I said as soon as they were made public and as soon as the newspapers carried these false stories, I recetved phone calls and I leamed about -- | learned about her encounter with the criminal justice system. wo Oman Mm PW bw NNN NN MH eM we ee bo BoB ob PWN H OW ANA UF WDH HO 25 oOoMU MAI HO Ff WD 215 Q. That would certainly have been prior to February 23rd of 2015, correct? A. Yes. MR. SCOTT: Are you going back to the exhibit now with the newspapers and -- MR. SCAROLA: Not yet. MR. SCOTT: Okay. BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. Having reviewed the available airplane flight logs, you are aware that Bill Clinton flew on at least 15 occasions with Jeffrey Epstein on his private plane, correct? A. Yes. Q. Have you ever attempted to get flight log information with regard to Former President Clinton's other private airplane travel? A. No. Q. Never made a public records request —- A. Yes. Q. -- under the Freedom of Information Act with regard to those records? A. Well, we have made a Freedom of Information request. My -- my attorney in New York, Louis Freeh, the former head of the FBI, has made a FOIA request for all information that would 216 conclusively prove that Bill Clinton was never on Jeffrey Epstein’s island, yes. Q. And you were denied those records, correct? A. No, no, no. Q. Oh, you got them? MR. SCOTT: Well, wait a minute. Let's take it slow. Ask a question. A. Asany lawyer knows, FOIA requests take a long, long period of time. So they were neither denied nor were they given to us. They are very much in process. BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. When was -- A. While we're talking about -- may I complete -- | want to amend one answer | gave previously. While we're talking about the plane logs, ] must say that during the recess, my wife Googled Tatiana and found out that she was, in fact, 24 years old in 1995, at the time she flew on that airplane. So that my characterization of her as about 25 years old is absolutely correct. And the implication that you sought to draw by showing me those pictures was not only 10 (Pages 213 to 216) www. phippsreporting.com (888) 811-3408 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010792

wow Om A Oh Pw DY BK NN NNN NY EY BP eH BP Pe RP PP Pp RP WO PWN HF Ow OYA MU BR WN BO wo Ow A MN FP WN NNNNN NFP RP RP RP Be ep Rp pp “Opwnh PP Ob OYA UM BwWN PHO 217 demonstrably false, but you could have easily discovered that the implication you were drawing was demonstrably false by simply taking one second and Googling her name as my wife did. BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. And so at 25 years old, she wasn't a young woman? A. She was not the kind of woman that I was describing as underage. She was a mature, serious, I think I said in my public statements a model. 1 wasn't aware at the time that see was working for Victoria's Secrets, but Google demonstrates that. And I described her exactly, in exactly the right terms, a serious person. I always saw her dressed when I saw her -~- I saw her maybe on two or three occasions, dressed appropriately. She was a serious adult worker and I think you insult and demean her when you suggest that anything other than that she was a serious adult when she flew on that airplane. Q. You were asked on the occasion of that same Don Lemon CNN interview what possible motive the attorneys, Brad Edwards and Paul Cassell, could have had to have identified you in the pleading that was filed in the Crime Victim's Rights Act case. _ warn nw be wn Bb NNN NNN PRP BP Pe RP op BP Pp OB WN HF OU MAA KH FWN RO she has a history of lying, knowing that she is easily suggestible, and they basically pressured her, according to my sources, into including me when she didn't want to include me, because by including me, they could make a claim, false as it was, could make a false claim that a person who negotiated the NPA was also criminally involved with her. They also lied -- lied unethically and unprofessionally by saying that I negotiated that provision of the NPA, which gave me, myself, any kind of immunity from prosecution had I had improper sex with Virginia Roberts, which, of course, I did not. And that was one of the bases on which I was certain that they had engaged in unprofessional, disbarrable and unethical conduct by including that provision, as well as including a provision that Prince Andrew was included because he, Prince Andrew, pressured a United States attorney to try to get a good deal for Jeffrey Epstein. That is so laughable. How any lawyer could put that in a pleading, it doesn’t pass even the minimal giggle test. And I'm embarrassed for Professor Cassell that he would have signed his narne to a pleading that alleges that Prince Andrew would pressure the United States attorney for the Southern Do you remember that? A. That's right, yes. Q. And your response was, quote —- MR. SCOTT: Here's your transcript if you need to refer to it. BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. - "They want to be able to challenge the plea agreement and I was one of the lawyers who organized the plea agreement. I got the very good deal for Jeffrey Epstein." Did you make that response? A. Yes. Q. So, you recognized as of January 5, 2015, that the reason why the statements were filed in the Crime Victim's Rights Act case was because the Crime Victim's Rights Act case had, as an objective, setting aside the plea agreement that you had negotiated for Jeffrey Epstein, correct? MR. SCOTT: Objection, form. Go ahead if you can answer it. A. There were multiple motives. One of the motives was crassly financial. They were trying to line their pockets with money. But as I also said, and I said this over and over again, they profiled me. They sat down with their client, knowing that wow Oy A MW BP WD BP NNN NPP eH BP RP Pp pp PP WONHF OU ON DM BW ND BO N wn District of Florida into giving Jeffrey Epstein a good deal. MR. SCAROLA: Move to strike the unresponsive portions of the answer. And obviously the break didn't do any good. MR. SCOTT: Let's proceed. MR. SCAROLA: We're going to. BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. You stated, quote: "If they," referring to Bradley Edwards and Paul Cassell, "could find a lawyer who helped draft the agreement" -—- A. Right. Q. -- "who also was a criminal having sex, wow, that could help them blow up the agreement." Did you make that statement on -- A. Yes. |} just repeated it now, yes, under oath, yes. Q. Did you state the following in that same interview: "So they," referring to Bradley Edwards, Paul Cassell and Virginia Roberts, "sat down together, the three of them, these two sleazy, unprofessional disbarrable lawyers" -- A. Uh-huh, uh-huh. Q. -- "they said" -- MR. SCOTT: Let him ask the question. 11 (Pages 217 to 220) www. phippsreporting.com (888) 811-3408 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010793

wo owt nm Fwd NNNNNN BPP BP PP SP ep BE “UP WN HF Ob MAN AU BWNR OO ow MOAN AM PF WN BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. -- “who would fit into this description? They and the woman got together and contrived and made this up." Did you make that statement on national television? A. Yes, aud | just repeated it under oath. I believe that to be the case. | think that's exactly what happened. And I think that my source has corroborated that. By the way, can J add at this point -- I don't mean to distract you, but | think the record would be more complete if [ indicated that I did get a phone eall last night from Michael, who told me that he had received numerous phone calls and texts from Virginia Roberts trying to persuade her not to talk to me or cooperate with me and offering the help of a lawyer. And I also -- although you didn't ask the question, Mr. Scarola, I think for eompleteness and fullness, I do want to say that you asked me whether or not I knew about what could be taped and what couldn't be taped. I did tape record some of what Virginia Roberts [sic.] told me, with her on~rInwm & wn NNNNNN FRPP BP BP PP ep “UbBwWwnNeE Ow AYNHU AWNEHE OW who made transcripts of them. Q. Did you turn them over to opposing counsel -- MR. SCOTT: The transcripts -- BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. --in the course of discovery? MR. SCOTT: The transeripts we consider to be work product. If you make a request to produee, we'll provide them. MR. SIMPSON: Just for completeness, they were also after your discovery request. MR. SCOTT: Request to produce, we'll eonsider providing them, BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. Is there an entry in any privilege log that identifies these allegedly privileged work preduct documents? MR. SIMPSON: We will -- the lawyers will address the document production issues. But two things, Mr. Scarola, first, they postdate your request and you have said several times there's no duty to supplement. And second, they're work product. MR. SCAROLA: Well, sir, if they postdated a full and complete production, which we are permission, and I have those tape recordings. Q. Well, you're getting a little bit overexcited, Mr. Dershowitz, because you never tape recorded anything that Virginia Roberts told you. A. Did I say Virginia Roberts? Q. You misspoke. A. Imisspoke. You wouldn't know that. But, in faet, let me be clear. 1 tape recorded, with her permission, Rebecca's statements to me about what Virginia Roberts had told her. And | just want to make sure that for completeness, even though you didn't ask the question yesterday, that's part of the record. Q. Well, Lactually did ask the question and my recollection is that you said you didn't even think about tape recording anything -- MR. SCOTT: No, that's not aecurate. You never asked that. BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. But can you tell us, please, did you turn over those tape recordings in the discovery that you were required to make in this case? A. The discovery -- these events occurred after April of 2015. And | certainly tumed over the recordings and the -- recordings to my lawyers, onwnm & Wd FB NNNNN NEP PEP BPP PB eB MU BWNHP OW OYA AWNHEHE OY 224 now told they do not, then you wouldn't be obliged to supplement the production that had already been completed. But it is not the date of the request that matters, it is the date of the production that matters. And what we're now being told is there are allegedly highly relevant transcripts of a telephone conversation that occurred months ago when the last production that we received, which we are told still is not complete, oceurred approximately two weeks ago. So, there's no privilege log entry. There's no production of these documents. And there is clearly a very significant discovery violation if, in fact, such documents exist. MR. SIMPSON: I'm not going to debate it here, Mr. Scarola, but your assertions are not accurate. MR. SCAROLA: Allright. There also was a subpoena duces teeum that was responded to tomorrow -- I'm sorry, yesterday. Can you tell us whether the documents that are now being described are included in response to the subpoena duces tecum on the flash drive that you provided to us? 12 (Pages 221 to 224) www.phippsreporting.com (888) 811-3408 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010794

to OTD mn PWN NNNNNN BP Pe PP ee eo OBWNHH OW AIH UM BWNHRHO to ow Din fF Wd NN NNN NY BY FP BP BP RP BR HF HP Bp uk Wn Of ON HDM FW DNF OC 225 MR. SIMPSON: The flash drive is the same as the document production. MR. SCAROLA: So the answer is no, they're not there; is that correct? MR. SIMPSON: Correct. MR. SCAROLA: Okay. And what's the explanation for that? MR. SIMPSON: I'm not going to debate this on the record with you, Mr. Scarola. MR. SCAROLA: All right. Thank you. BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. Which conversation with Rebecca did you tape record? A. I tape recorded a conversation with her permission where she told me that she was pressured, she didn't -- where Rebecca told me that Virginia was pressured and that she didn't want to name me but she was pressured to name me, that she had never previously named me. By the way, | told this to Virginia Roberts! lawyer. MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. To the extent you're going to reveal anything that was said during settlement discussions, I’m moving for sanctions, period. We're not doing this today. : wow oda A mF WwW NY NN NN NN BR eM Be eb Eb ne WN FO WM MONTH BW HO 227) A. Iknow what you know because I'm a logical person and I know that Virginia -- I know that Virginia Roberts repeatedly called this -- this woman and her husband, repeatedly text her, and knows her name. And you and Virginia Roberts' lawyers are operating in privity here. You're whispering to each other, you're passing notes. You are part of a joint legal team. And if you want to know her name, all you have to do is ask Sigrid McCawiley and she'll tell you her name. I'm sure you know her name. And if you don't know her name, it's because you haven't asked. . Okay. Well, I'm asking you ~ . I'm not going to tell you -- . and I'm telling you I don't know her . Okay. . Okay? As an officer of the court, 1am telling you I don't know her name. And you are under oath and obliged to answer material and relevant questions, and I want to know what her name is. MR. SCOTT: I will provide you the name off the record, but I'm not -- if he feels it's 226 Please instruct the witness. MR. SCOTT: Avoid that. We discussed that yesterday. THE WITNESS: That's fine. BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. What was the date of the phone conversation that you tape recorded? A. I don't recall. But it's on the transcript. Q. And does it also reflect that the recording is being made with her permission? A. Uh-huh. Q. That's a yes? A. Yes. Yes, that's a yes. Q. What is Rebecca's last name? A. You know Rebecca's last name and she has asked me not to reveal it to the press. And so } would like to comply with that -- with that request. For purposes of discovery, you know her name, you know her husband's name, you know her phone number, and she has been called. But there's no reason for me to reveal it so that it appears in the press that she would be called by newspapers and by the media. Q. Mr. Dershowitz, how do you know what I know if you haven't told me? oI HM PB WDHB NNNNN NFP PP Pe Be ee WU PBWNH COW’O IDM BWNeH OW 228 inappropriate because of what -- he's not going to answer the question. I will provide you the name. BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. Okay. She has still insisted that her name not be revealed; is that correct? A. Her husband asked me to do whatever | could not to put her name in front of the press, in front of the media. Q. There's no -- there's no one from the press here today. MR. SCOTT: Yeah, but they're going to order the transcript and they're going to sce, so that's the same thing. And I've already told -- A. You will have her name in five -- MR. SCOTT: I will give you her name -- A, -- minutes. All you have to do is -- MR. SCOTT: And, Jack, if you want to take a break now -- THE REPORTER: Holdon. Hold on, gentlemen. You can't talk at the same time. MR. SCOTT: Let me do the talking at this point. THE WITNESS: Please. 13 (Pages 225 to 228) www.phippsreporting.com (888) 811-3408 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010795

BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. What's her phone number? A. Her phone number is known to Virginia Roberts and presumably -- and to Virginia Roberts’ lawyers because she received phone calls from Virginia Roberts! lawyers. So all you have to do is ask your colleagues and you will get that. But I think there's no reason to put her phone number in the public record so that she will receive massive amounts of phone calls from the media. Seems to me that any -- that a judge would try to prevent that from happening. I would hope so. And I'm -- you can get the name and the phone number from my lawyer as long as it's -- MR. SCOTT: We'll provide that. A. --+ done off the record, not so that the media can see it. BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. You just swore under oath that lawyers contacted Rebecca; is that correct? A. [swore under oath that I was told by Michael that lawyers contacted Rebecca, yes. Q. Which lawyers? A. I don't know the answer to that. Q. Did you ask him? wo Orn nub WNP NNNNNN FPP RP PRP PPP BP PR WU WN FP OW OY DM e@ wY NR OO 231 more accomplished. MR. SCAROLA: Let's take it easy and slow. BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. How did Michael tell you he knew these people he didn't speak to were lawyers? A. He told me that he received a phone call from Virginia Roberts. That then his wife received numerous phone calls and texts from her all through the night. And that they received phone calls as well from her lawyers. One of them had a Miami phone number. And I don't know how he knew they were lawyers. But that's what he conveyed to me. Alll can tell you is what he told me, and I'm telling you that. Q. Did you ask him for the phone number? A. [did not. Q. Why not? A. | didn't think it was appropriate or necessary. Q. What was inappropriate about asking for the phone number to find out who was attempting to contact this witness? A. | was not particularly interested in that. All 1 was interested in was getting the truth from I did. And he said, I -- . He wouldn't answer that. . -- refuse to tell you? A. No, he didn’t know the answer to that either because he didn't return the phone calls. He said -- Q. How did he know they were lawyers if he didn't return the phone calls? A. Because they left messages, presumably. Q. With names that identified them as lawyers; is that right? MR. SCOTT: You're arguing with the witness -- A. [don't know the answer to that. MR. SCAROLA: No, I'm trying to find out whether there's any logical basis for the stories that the witness is telling. MR. SCOTT: And I think he's trying to explain it. And I think he's trying to do it in an easy, slow format. So, you know -- MR. SCAROLA: Okay. Well, let's take it easy -- MR. SCOTT: -- if we all take -- if we all take the tension down here, maybe we can get oO OI DM F&F WN NNNNN NPP RPP RP PP PP PB Ue WNP OW OMNIA UN FWNF OO 232 the witness and trying to prevent her from having a media barrage that would interfere with their lives. Q. You told Don Lemon on CNN that the flight manifests would exonerate you, prove that you were not in the same place at the same time as Virginia Roberts, correct? A. That's right. And that's true. Q. You also told Don Lemon, quote, "] am waiving the statute of limitations or any immunity." A. That's right. Q. You were then subsequently asked to waive the statute of limitations and refused to, correct? A. Absolutely false. I waived the statute of limitations by submitting a statement under oath. Had I not submitted that statement under oath, the statute of limitations would have been long gone. But by stating under oath categorically that I did not have any sexual contact with her, I waived the statute of limitations and could be prosecuted for the next five or so years for perjury in what I said was false. But what | said was true, so I have no fear of any statute of limitations or any criminal prosecution. So, yes, | did waive the statute of 14 (Pages 229 to 232) www. phippsreporting.com (888) 811-3408 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010796

oO OT Din WN NNNNNN BY eH PP eH eH eB oR Pe MP WN eH OO MN AM Be WN FP OO oOo ODD DU B@ WN NNNNN NF Pe HP PR OR OP nr WNP Ow OND BW NRE O limitations, yes. Q. You refused to waive the statute of limitations with regard to sexual crimes, correct? A. Ididn't refuse anything. I didn't feel I had any obligation to respond to you. And I did not. Q. So, you were asked to waive the statute of limitations with regard to your sexual crimes and you refused to respond? A. I was asked by you, utterly inappropriately, and what I had said -- and if you check what I said, I said if any reasonable prosecutor were to investigate the case and find that there was any basis, I would then waive the statute of limitations. | didn't waive the statute of limitations because you, a lawyer, for two unprofessional, unethical lawyers asked me to do so, what obligation do I have to respond to you? Q. Well, you have no obligation to respond to me at all, Mr. Dershowitz, except now while you are under oath and I am asking you questions and I would greatly appreciate you responding to the questions that I ask. MR. SCOTT: I think he's trying. oO OWT DM PW bh HH NNN NNN Pe PPP PP PP Pp mek WN FOO ON DAH PWN PO 235 Q. And by dropping the dime on the media when they filed it, you intended to convey the message that Paul Cassell and Bradley Edwards intentionally generated the focus of press attention on that filing; is that correct? A. Absolutely. Absolutely without any doubt. Why else would they have brought Prince Andrew into this filing? Prince Andrew had no connection to the NPA, no relevance at all. But they knew that by including Prince Andrew, this would drag my name into every single newspaper and media outlet in the world. It was outrageous for them to do this. Particularly because they did so little, if any, investigation, which will, of course, be determined when they're deposed. And -- and -- Q. Well, you've already made that determination, right? MR. SCOTT: Wait. A. I'mconvinced that -- that they did little or no investigation. They never even bothered to call me. That would have been -- BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. We'll get to that in just a moment. A. --asimple basic thing. BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. You made the further statement in that same interview, "They dropped the dime on the media when they filed it," referring to the CVRA pleading -- A. Right. Q. - in which were you named? A. Right. Q. What is the basis for that statement? A. The basis for that statement was that the filing was done virtually on the eve of New Year's ona day that the press was completely dead. And nonetheless, immediately upon the filing, I got a barrage of phone calls that led me to conclude, and led many, many, many other lawyers who called me to conclude that obviously somebody tipped somebody off that they didn't just happen to file -- to find in the middle of an obscure pleading which didn't even have a heading that indicated that | was involved or anybody else was involved. So, I'm certain that a dime was dropped to somebody saying, by the way, you want an interesting story, there's -- Prince Andrew of Great Britain and Alan Dershowitz have been accused of sexual misconduct. I still believe that. oO OA DM Pf WN NR NN NN NP PP PP eR POP HY moe WGN FP oO tf) WAI KH FW NY HY oO 236 Q. But right now ~— right now could you please tell us was there anything other than your inferring that they must have contacted the media to support your conclusion that either Paul Cassell or Brad Edwards did, im fact, alert the media at the time of the filing of this pleading? A. Yes. Q. What else besides your inference? A. When the BBC came to see me, the BBC reporter showed me an e-mail from Paul Cassell, which urged him, the BBC reporter, to ask me a series of questions. So | knew that Paul Cassell was in touch with the British media and was trying to stimulate and initiate embarrassing questions to be asked of me. And when I spoke to a number of reporters, they certainly -- obviously reporters have privilege, but they said things that certainly led me to infer that they had been in close toueh with your clients or representatives on their behalf. . What was the date of the e-mail — L don't know. . -- that you referenced in that response? . [don't know. . Well -- 15 (Pages 233 to 236) www.phippsreporting.com (888) 811-3408 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010797

wow on Dm ew DnN NNNNNN HHH ee ee ee EL MP WwNeF OOF MAA PWN HO worn nau *F WN NNNNN YN RP FP RF RF FP FP RF RF HM Re Wn FW NF OO ON Dm FWY NY KF Oo 237 A. It was whenever -- I'm not sure I ever saw the date. He just quickly showed me the e-mail and I quickly looked at it. Q. The e-mail that you are referencing, in fact, occurred after you had begun all of your media appearances with respect to this filing ~~ A. Let me be very clear about -- Q. -- didn't it, sir? A. Let me be very clear about my media appearances so that | -- Q. How about just answering the questions? A. I'm trying to answer the question. All of my media appearances -- Q. The question is: Did it occur before or after your media -- your media appearances? That doesn't call for a speech -- A. It came -- Q. ~it calls for before or after. A. It came before some and after some. It came, for example, before my appearance on the BBC because they showed me the e-mail before they interviewed me for the BBC. So some occurred -- it occurred before some and it occurred after some. Q. Allright. So itis your assertion that this single e-mail that you have made reference to oOo on DM FF WHD HE NNN NNN FH ee oe Be Be BE BE BoB Mme WNH OW ON AU BR wWNHPR OO MR. SCOTT: I think he's answered that twice. A. It came after. It came after. BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. Thank you, sir. On January 5, you made another CNN Live appearance in an interview with Hala Gorani. Do you recall that? A. 1 do not recall the name of the person -- Q. Take a look at the transcript, if you would, please, page 15. MR. SCOTT: Take a moment to review the transcript, please, Mr. Dershowitz. THE WITNESS: Page 15. MR. SCOTT: Take your time to review that. A. Yeah, that name is not familiar to me but, of course, I remember doing an interview, yes. BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. All right, sir. And during the course of that interview, you said: "There are flight manifests. They will prove I was never on any private airplane with any young woman." Correct? A. Yes. Q. Go to page 17, if you would. A. Uh-huh. Q. Atline 4 of transcript of that same 238 where Paul Cassell says "asks Dershowitz these questions" occurred before your -- your media appearances and after your media appearances; ts that correct? MR. SCOTT: Objection, form, argumentative and repetitious. A. It occurred before some of the media appearances, and it occurred after some of media appearances, yes. BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. Did it occur before your first media appearances? A. My first media appearances came as the result of phone calls I received from -- Q. That's nonresponsive to my question, sir. A. -~ newspapers -- Q. I didn't ask you anything about what your first media appearances occurred -- A. Yes, you did. Q. -- asa result of. 1 asked you -- MR. SCOTT: Let him ask his question. BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. -- whether the e-mail that you claimed to have seen was sent before or after your first media appearance? wo on Du FF WN N NNN NN HH eM ew Be eB eo be “uP WNeHF OW AANA UN PF wWNHRE OO 240 interview, you said: "She made the whole thing up out of whole cloth. I can prove it by flight records. | can prove it by my travel records." Did you make those statements? A. Yes, and they're absolutely true. Q. Okay. I am going to hand you every flight record that has been produced in connection with this litigation. A. Uh-huh, MR. SCAROLA: Could we mark that as the next composite exhibit, please? (Thereupon, marked as Plaintiff Exhibit 6.) MR. SCAROLA: And mark this as the next composite exhibit, which will be 7. MR. SCOTT: These are all the flight manuals? MR. SCAROLA: As far as I know. MR. SCOTT: Okay. MR. SCAROLA: They're the only ones that have been produced in discovery. If there are more, I'm going to be interested to hear about it. (Thereupon, marked as Plaintiff Exhibit 7.) 16 (Pages 237 to 240) www.phippsreporting.com (888) 811-3408 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010798

wow ony nm @ WN NNN NNN BH BR eB bb be bt fe “ne WN OL OI KRM FWN EO 241 (Discussion off the record.) JHE WITNESS: What's Number 6 then? I'm confused, there were two. BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. Have you ever seen Exhibit Number 6 before? A. Exhibit Number 6. I don't believe so. It doesn't look familiar to me. Q. No? A. It does not look familiar to me. Q. Did you bother at any time to review discovery that was produced by Bradley Edwards and Paul Cassell responding to requests for information that supported the allegations of Virginia Roberts? A. I'm not clear what you're asking. Q. Iwant te know — A. In which case? In which case are we talking? Q. This case. This case. A. Right. Q. Did you ever bother to review the discovery produced in this case responding to requests for all of the information that supported their belief in the truthfulness of Virginia Roberts' allegations against you? wo On nM @ WN NNNNNN PRP PP PP ee ee Ue WN HOUMA AMH &@ WN OO 243 exonerated by any flight logs that were innocent -- that were complete and accurate, of course. Q. So you made the public statements repeatedly that the flight logs would exonerate you without having examined the flight logs to see whether they were accurate or not; is that correct? A. Weill, I knew -- I knew that -- Q. Did you say those things without having examined the flight logs? A. I said those things having looked at some of the flight logs at some point in time. But! knew for sure that the flight logs would exonerate me because I knew I was never on Jeffrey Epstein's plane with Virginia Roberts or any other young underage girls. So, I knew that to an absolute certainty. And I was prepared to say it. I'm prepared to say it again under oath here. And if your clients had simply called me and told me they were planning to do this, we wouldn't be here today because I could have shown them in one day that it was impossible for me to have had sex with their client on the island, in the ranch, on the airplanes, in Palni Beach. And they would have, if they were decent and ethical lawyers, not filed that. wo on nM @ WN NNNNN NEP RPP PPB eB BP PR ue WNP OW DAYH UM BWNRO A. I don't know if T reviewed everything. But I certainly, in preparation for this deposition, reviewed some of the documents that were produced in discovery. But I can't say I reviewed them all. Q. Well, having placed such substantial emphasis during the course of your public appearances on the flight logs exonerating you, it would certainly seem logical that one of the things that you would want te review would be all of the available -- all of the available flight logs, right? A. No. MR. SCOTT: Objection, argumentative. A. No. BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. No? A. No. Look, I knew I was never on a plane with any underage females under any circumstances. I knew that. I knew that as certainly as I'm sitting here today. So, | knew absolutely that if the manifests and the flight logs were accurate, they would, of course, exonerate me because ] am totally, completely, unequivocally innocent of any of these charges. So of course | knew that I would be owv WwN HA WF WYN 244 And there are cases, legal ethics cases that say that lawyers are obliged to make that phone call. Lawyers are obliged to check if it's easy to check. Lawyers are obliged to, particularly when they're making extremely heinous charges against a fellow lawyer, do very, very, detailed investigations. And they didn't do that in this case. Q. I will represent to you that | have handed you all of the available flight logs produced in the discovery of this case. Could you show me, please, which of these flight logs exonerates you? A. The absence of evidence is evidence of absence. None of the flight logs have me on an airplane with Virginia Roberts. None of the flight logs have me on an airplane during the relevant period of time when Virginia Roberts claims that she had sex with me in the presence of another woman. So, the flight logs clearly exonerate me. There's absolutely no doubt about that, Q. Well, the flight logs, in fact, confirm that you were in the same places at the same time as Virginia Roberts, don't they? A. No, they do not. Q. Do you -- do you deny that they confirm 17 (Pages 241 to 244) www.phippsreporting.com (888) 811-3408 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010799

po on Am FF WN EH ON NN NY NY FF FP FP FP FP RFP Pr re WU BPW NY FF OM ON H MO Pw NY PO 245 that you were in the same place at the same time A. First -- Q. --as Virginia Roberts? MR. SCOTT: Let him ask the question. THE WITNESS: Okay. MR. SCOTT: Then you answer the question. And Mr. Searola will try to, you know, keep the emotion down, I'm sure, so we can get through this with less acrimony between everybody here. A. Your client has adamantly refused, as well as the lawyer -- BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. No, sir, that's nonresponsive to my question. MR. SCOTT: Wait a minute. BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. My question is: Do you deny that the flight logs corroborate that you were in the same place at the same time as Virginia Roberts? A. So the question includes the word "time" and, therefore, I must answer in this way. Your client -- Q. How to build a watch? MR. SCOTT: Wait a minute, you're cutting him off. He's been trying to answer the Oo On DM B@ WN FE NNNNNN PRP BP PB PP eH PB ob WN HF OO OT AW BW NH Oo 247 I would be very anxious to see any timeframes when Virginia Roberts claims she was with me on the island, claims she was with me on -- at the ranch, claims she was with me on the airplanes, claims she was with me in Palm Beach. And they will all conclusively -- . You forgot -- -- prove -- . «New York. Didn't you mean New York . No, I did not mean New York -- . Oh, okay. . +- because New York is very different. I was, in fact, in New York for large periods of time. I was not, in fact, on the island during the relevant timeframe. I was not in the airplane in the relevant timeframe. I was not in Jeffrey Epstein's Palm Beach home in the relevant timeframe. And I was once in the ranch but under circumstances where it would have been absolutely impossible for me to have had any contact with her. So if you will give me the timeframe, I will be happy to answer your question. But without timeframes, that question is an absolutely inappropriate question. And the answer to if is no. ot 246 question. A. Your client has adamantly refused, and her lawyers and your clients have refused to give me any timeframes, any timeframes when your clicnt claims that she had improper -- falsely claims, perjuriously claims that she had improper sexual encounters with me. So how can you possibly ask me a question that includes the word "timeframes" when your client has refused -- when Virginia Roberts has refused to give any timeframes? How can it be possible that the flight logs show me being in the same time and saine place with her when she has refused to describe any of the times that she claims to have been in those places? So the answer to the question is categorically no, sir. BY MR, SCAROLA: Q. What is the question that you are answering no to? A. Whether or not the timeframe shows that I could have been in the samc placc at the same time as your client. Absolutcly not. Because we don't know what times your client -- now, if you know that, you should have produced them in discovery and on ODN DM FWD NNNNN NF PHP RP BB Oe eB OP WN OHM DBIYAMH BwWN RB 248 Q. Well, Mr. Dershowitz, it might be inappropriate if you had not repeatedly made the public statements that the flight logs exonerate you. A. They do. Q. So what I am attempting to find out is the basis upon which you can contend that the flight logs exonerate you if you are now telling us you don't even know when it is that you are alleged to have been in the same place at the same time as Virginia Roberts. A. Okay. Q. So how -- how can you make both those statements? A. Very simple, because I know the timeframe that Virginia Roberts, A, knew Jeffrey Epstein. And during that timeframe, I can conclusively prove that 1 was never on Jeffrey Epstein's island where she claimed to have sex with me. That the only time | was at the ranch was with my wife, with the Ashe family, with my daughter, the house was under construction, we just simply stayed outside the house and looked around. That the manifests show | was never on Jeffrey Epstein's plane during that period of time. And the manifests show that I never 18 (Pages 245 to 248) www.phippsreporting.com (888) 811-3408 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010800

wow on nm B@ WwW NY ne ee worn nuda WH RHO 249 flew down to Palm Beach during that relevant period of time. So [ have a timeframe not that was provided by your client but that was provided by the externalities of the case. And that timeframe coupled with the manifests clearly exonerate me without any doubt. Q. Ll want to make sure that I understood what you just said. "I never flew down to Palm Beach during the relevant timeframe"? A. Inever flew down and stayed at Jeffrey's house in Palm Beach during that relevant period of time. Q. Okay. Se you want to withdraw the statement that you never flew down to Palm Beach -- MR. SCOTT: Objection. BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. -- during that relevant period of time -- A. Let me be -- MR. SCOTT: Objection. BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. -- and what you want to say is, "I never flew down to Palm Beach and stayed at Jeffrey Epstein's house during that timeframe period," correct? wow On Dm BW NY NNN NNN BPP PPP PP pe BH OP WHE OW OMNKHU PWN PO 251 Q. Which of the manifests are you referring to when you claim what you have claimed about the manifests, Exhibit Number 6 or Exhibit Number 7? A. [can only tell you that I have reviewed the manifests and they show, to me, that I was never on Jeffrey Epstein's airplane during the relevant period of time. That's all I can tell you now. I'm not in a position where I look at all these documents now. If you point me to any particular trip that shows that I was on Jeffrey Epstein's plane, | would be happy to respond to that. Q. There are two separate collections of documents purporting to be flight manifests for Jeffrey Epstein's plane. When you made the public statements that you made regarding the flight logs or manifests exonerating you, were you referring to Exhibit Number 6 or Exhibit Number 7? A. Ihave no recollection as to which particular exhibits, which are formed for purposes of the legal case, | had reviewed. I know I had reviewed the manifests. Not only had | reviewed the manifests, but others reviewed the manifests and have conclusively told me that their review of the manifests shows that I was right. 250 | MR. SCOTT: Objection, argumentative -- A. Let me be -- MR. SCOTT: -- mischaracterization. A. Let me be clear. A, [never flew down on Jeffrey Epstein's plane during the relevant period of time. BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. Flew down to where? A. To Palm Beach or anywhere else. I was never on Jeffrey Epstein's plane, according to the flight manifests and according to my own records, during the relevant period of time. I have independent records of my travel which demonstrate that I was not in Jeffrey Epstein's house during the relevant period of time. And -- but the -- talking about the manifests, the manifests conclusively prove that ] was never on the airplane during the relevant period of time. So I don't know how you can claim that the manifests show that I was with Virginia Roberts during the relevant period of time. They do not do that. And if you would testify under oath to that, I think you could be subject to pretty -- pretty scathing cross examination. So your statement is categorically false, sir. wou Hn ue wWwdnP NN MN NN Be PP PP Be Pe UP wWwN FP Owe OAKHAM WN PO Q. Who else - MR. SCOTT: Avoid any attorney-client communications either with Ms. -- you know, with your current lawyers, please. THE WITNESS: Okay. BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. Who told you that they had reviewed the manifests and they confirmed your position? MR. SCOTT: Objection, work product. MR. SCAROLA: Well, you know, Mr. Scott, he can't have it both ways. He can't insert into the record the gratuitous statements that he inserts into the record regarding others having corroborated his inaccurate testimony, and then refuse to tell us who those others are. It constitutes a waiver of whatever privilege might exist. MR. SCOTT: He can -- he can tell who they are. I'm just saying he can't go into communications with them. MR. SCAROLA: Well, he's already said what the communication was. The communication was these manifests prove your position. MR. SCOTT: And he's answered that because based on his review of them, Mr. Scarola. 19 (Pages 249 to 252) www.phippsreporting.com (888) 811-3408 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010801

Oo Ow DU FP WN NNNNNN HPP PHP RPP RPP PE ne wWNP Ow @YH HB WNR OO wo Orn nM WN NNNNN NP PH PHP PP RP RB vob WN FF OO ON AM BW NP OD 253 BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. Who told you that the manifests confirm the accuracy of your publie statements? MR. SCOTT: If it involves lawyer-client privilege, don't answer it. THE WITNESS: Okay. BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. You're refusing to answer? A. No, I would like -- MR. SCOTT: Instruct you not to answer. A. -- to answer. But I've been instructed not to answer. I would like to answer. You've made a statement -- MR. SCOTT: There's no question pending. THE WITNESS: But he made a statement -- MR. SCOTT: But there's no question pending, sir. BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. What does it mean to make something up out of whole cloth? A. It means that Virginia Roberts and your clients -- Q. No, sir, | haven't asked you anything about Virginia Roberts. | haven't asked you anything about my clients. Oo On HU WN PR NNNNNNPFP RF PR PPR PR UP WNP Ow OY HU PWN RO 255 MR. INDYKE: Objection. This is Darren. Anything that relates to your conversations with Jeffrey -- THE REPORTER: He's going to have to speak up. MR. SCOTT: You're going to have to speak up a little bit more, Counsel. MR. INDYKE: Objection. This is Darren Indyke. Anything that Alan might have to say to that, to the extent they are covered under conversations with Jeffrey Epstein, privileged under attorney-client privileges as well as common interest privileges. MR. SCOTT: Do you understand? THE WITNESS: I do. BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. To which your response was: "Sure, sure, certainly I have been his lawyer and J did speak to him about it. I wanted to make sure that his memory and mine coordinated about when I was at his island. He was able to check. I was able to check. | checked with my friends who went with me." Did you make that answer to that question? A. Yes. Q. Disclosing the contents of your 254 1 want to know what the words "making something up out of whole cloth" mean. A. 1 said those words in the context of Virginia Roberts. MR. SCOTT: That's -- that's fine. Go ahead. BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. What do the words mean? A. That there was absolutely no basis for Virginia Roberts' claim that she had any sexual contact with me. That the story was entirely false. I don't know where the metaphor derives about whole cloth, but certainly that's the common understanding. And I repeat under oath that Virginia Roberts made up the entire story about having sexual contact with me out of whole cloth. Q. During the course of the same interview that we have been referencing with Hala Gorani —~ for the record, that's H-A-L-A, G-O-R-A-N-I. A. What page? Q. Page 19. You were asked: "I'm wondering, have you spoken to Jeffrey Epstein about this since these allegations came out in this suit in the United States? Have conversations happened there?" Oo On KH MP WN BP PRR PP Pe RH to OW HU PWN REO communication with Jeffrey Epstein, correct? A. I disclosed that | had spoken to him to find out whether he had any records of when | was on his island. And, yes. MR. INDYKE: Again, this is Darren Indyke. Jeffrey does not waive any attorney-client privileges here. BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. Well, the reason why you were able to answer that question and discuss with the press what Jeffrey Epstein was telling you was because you weren't his lawyer at that time, right? A. No, I was his lawyer at that time. I'm still his lawyer. Q. Oh, what were you representing him on then -- A. The ongoing -- Q. -- that is, on January -- MR. SCOTT: Whoa. BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. -- on January 5, 2015? A. The ongoing -- MR. INDYKE: My objection stands. MR. SCOTT: You can answer what you were representing him on, | think. 20 (Pages 253 to 256) www.phippsreporting.com (888) 811-3408 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010802

wo orn nn PF WN NNNNNN HEE Be ee ee OP WN FP Ow OY HH BWNH OC wo OI Hoe why NNN NN NB eB ee Oe ee oe oe OWN HF OCH DOYHNHRWNHO A. The ongoing issues -- MR. SCOTT: But nothing about communications. A. Right. The ongoing issues relating to the NPA, which continue to this day. And I regard myself as his lawyer basically on all those -- all those issues. BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. So, when the pleadings were filed in the Crime Victims Rights Act regarding your conduct in relationship to Virginia Roberts and Jeffrey Epstein, you were and still are his lawyer in the Crime Victim's Rights Act case; is that correct? A. certainly am bound by lawyer-client privilege and communications, yes. Q. Okay. You go on to say in that same interview: "Only once in my life have I been in that area," referring to New Mexico. A. Yes. Q. "Only once in my life did my travel records show I was in New Mexico.” A. Uh-huh. Q. Is that an accurate statement? A. To the best of my knowledge. I have no recollection of being in New Mexico other than Oo OID OF WD NNN NNN BP Be Be Be eB oF Oo @wndkr ow AIHA UU BWNHE OO - the last 10 years? I would say 15 -- Last 15 -- -- years. -- how about the last 20 years? I have -- 1 don't think so. Okay. As I stand here today, I have no recollection of ever being in New Mexico except to visit the Ashes in January of 2000. I'm 77 years old. I've lived a long life. It is certainly possible that at some earlier point in my life -- I mean, I've been in most of the states, But I have no recollection of ever being in New Mexico. And I can tell you unequivocally the only time I was ever at Jeffrey Epstein's ranch was that one time with my wife with the Ashes, with my daughter. And we only stayed there for an hour and the house was not completed. it was under construction. And I certainly did not have any sexual encounter or any encounter with Virginia Roberts during that visit. MR. SCAROLA: Move to strike the unresponsive portions of the answer. POPOPOPO 258 during that visit to the Ashes, which was not during the -- the narrower timeframe. The narrower timeframe, remember, is Virginia Roberts meets Jeffrey Epstein in the late summer, the summer just before she’s turning 16, of 1999. She says she didn't comunence having sexual activities with any of Epstein’s friends until nine months later. That would put it in March or April of 2000. This visit occurred in January of 2000. It's the only time | recall having been in New Mexico. Q. Okay. I want to be sure now. You're not just saying that you were only at Jeffrey Epstein's ranch in New Mexico once; you are confirming your statement on national television that you have only been in New Mexico one time? A. My recollection right now is that | was only there once. I have no -- no other recollection of -- it's conceivable when I was a very young man, I could have been there. But I have no recollection of having been there. It certainly -- certainly I haven't been there recently. And during the relevant time period, | know [ haven't been there. Q. "Recently" means —- A. Fifteen -- oO On DU PF Wd NNNNN NFP EPP RB BR BR WRWNEF CoO WAU BW NYE O 260 MR. SCOTT: We don't agree on that point, so let's go ahead. MR. SCAROLA: It's of any help, I can agree that you don't agree to any of my objections. MR. SCOTT: No, that's not true. I mean, I'm trying to work with you, sir. I have to tell you, this -- this is obviously one of the most acrimonious depositions I've sat through in my 40 plus years because of the personalities involved here and because of the personal issues. And it's quite difficult for everybody in this room. MR. SCAROLA: | agree. MR. SCOTT: And all I'm saying, and my client is -- who's 77, is trying to defend his life. And I understand you're trying to vigorously -- and you're a great lawyer -- represent your clients. And it's -- this is not the typical deposition. And we're trying our very best, both ofus. MR. SCAROLA: Thank you. And you're right, you and | do agree on something. MR. SCOTT: As you said yesterday, more 21 (Pages 257 to 260) www.phippsreporting.com (888) 811-3408 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010803

av won num Fs WN EF wo aon nub WN FE NNNNNNPREFP PP RP PRP FP RP WMPBWNF Ow ATH UY Bw NE OO often than we usually say. MR. SCAROLA: Yes, sir. BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. In interviews on January 4 and January 5, you claim to have completed the necessary work to identify documents exonerating you within an hour after learning of the accusations that were made, correct? A. 1 don't remember having said that. But within a minute, I had clear knowledge that every document in the world would exonerate me because I knew for absolute certainty that every aspect of her allegation was totally false. That's why I challenged the other side to produce videos, to produce photographs. I knew that there could be no evidence inculpating me because I knew I was innocent. So I knew that all of my records would prove that. Facts are facts. And I just wasn't in any contact or any sexual contact with Virginia Roberts, and I knew with absolute certainty that the facts would completely exonerate me. And if your clients had just called me, at the courtesy of simply calling me, I would have been able to point them to Professor Michael Porter of the Harvard Business fo On HM fF WN NNN NNN EH HM eB bb pp pp ob WN FO @ ON A MB WN HO A. Where? Where? Can you point to that? BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. Well, I'm asking you, sir, based upon your superb memory whether you remember having said — MR. SCOTT: No, we're going to do -- BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. - on Jan -- MR. SCOTT: He's going to take a moment to review the transcript and -- and that's -- any witness is entitled to do that. So why don't we take a break, he'll review transcript and we'll come back? We've been going an hour -- MR. SCAROLA: Because I haven't asked him a question about the transcript. MR. SCOTT: You've asked -- MR. SCAROLA: I'masking him a question about his recollection. MR. SCOTT: Based upon what he said in the transcript. MR. SCAROLA: No, I'm asking him whether he has a recollection of having made public statements that within an hour, he had gathered the documents that proved his innocence, exonerated him. 262 School. I would have been able to -- to alert them to the Ashes. I would have been able to tell them that | keep little black books which have all of my travel information. Although they were in the basement of Martha's Vineyard, | would have been happy to go up and get them. If they had just simply called me, I would have been able to persuade them without any doubt that these allegations were false. If they needed any persuading because I believe, as | sit here today, that they knew they were false at the time -- certainly should have known, but I believe knew they were false at the time that they leveled them. Q. My question related to your gathering documents that you claim exonerated you -- A. That's right. Q. --and your public statements were that within an hour, you -- A. Can you -- Q. -- had gathered the documents -- MR. SCOTT: Listen to the question. BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. -- you had gathered the documents that exonerated you, correct? MR. SCOTT: You can refer. fo On nm fb WN FE NNNNN NPP FP FP RP PP OF PB UP wWNnNEF OM MAYH MH BwWNEH OO BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. Do you remember having made those statements? A. I donot, but it's true. I was able to gather documents literally within an hour. I was able to call Tom Ashe. He was able to access his daughter's journal notes that I had taught his daughter's class. 1 was able to find out where my other documents were. My wife made some phone calls immediately. We called the Canyon Ranch. We called and determined the dates of when I was in Florida. We called the Porters. We very, very, very quickly were able to gather information that conclusively would prove that she was lying about me having had sex with me on the island, in the ranch, particularly those two I was able to prove conclusively. And when a woman lies deliberately and willfully about two instances where she in great detail claims she had had sex, I think you can be clear that you should discount any other -- any other false allegations. MR. SCOTT: We've been going for an hour. Let's take a break for a few minutes. Then we 22 (Pages 261 to 264) www.phippsreporting.com (888) 811-3408 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010804

ow won nu PWN 265 have another hour. MR. SCAROLA: I'm almost ready to take a break. MR. SCOTT: Okay. MR. SCAROLA: Could you read back the last question, please? First of all, I move to strike the unresponsive specch, And now read back the last question, if you would. (Requested portion read back as follows:) THE REPORTER: "Do you remember having made those statements?” Do you want me to read prior to that? MR. SCAROLA: No, that's fine. That's the question that I asked. BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. Is the answer yes? A. I don't remember specifically. Ido gencrally remember having said that your clients could have easily discovered conclusive proof that Virginia Roberts was lying about me and that had -- because 1 knew, of course, it was false -- MR. SCAROLA: Tom -- A. -- been able to uncover such proof. ow on HU BW NY be CMU MOY AUB WDNR 266 MR. SCAROLA: That has nothing to do with the question I asked -- MR. SCOTT: Let's take -- let's take a break like I suggested and we'll come back and then you can ask your question and -- okay? MR. SCAROLA: Well, while the question is pending, I would like an answer to the question before we break. MR. SCOTT: Did you answer the question? JHE WITNESS: [ thought I did. A. But what -- could you repeat the question? I'll try to answer it in a yes or no if I can. BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. Did you make the statement that within an hour of learning of these allegations, you had gathered documents that completely exonerated you? A. I don't recall those specific words -- Q. Thank you, sir. A. -- but the truth -- MR. SCOTT: That's it, and I think he indicated that before. MR. SCAROLA: That would be very helpful if we said that and then we stopped and we can take a break. MR. SCOTT: He previously had said that wo nrg nm FP WN NNNNN NEP BY He PB oR Be “mk WNeH OW ON AU FW NEO and then explained it but now you have it directly answered. So we're -- we're ata break point. MR. SCAROLA: Thank you. VIDEOGRAPHER: Going off the record. The time is approximately 11:01 a.m. (Recess was held from 11:01 a.m. until 11:23 a.m.) VIDEOGRAPHER: Going back on the record. The time is approximately 11:23 a.m. BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. When did you last travel from outside the State of Florida to arrive in Florida? A. The day before yesterday, | think. Q. And where did you travel from? A. New York. Q. When were you last in Boston, in the Boston area? A. About two weeks ago. Q. So, if anyone had represented that you were going to be traveling from Boston to Florida this past weekend, that would have been a misrepresentation; is that correct? A. Thave no idca what you're talking about. Q. Well, I'm talking about your personal travels. If anyone had represented that you were 268 going to travel from Boston to Florida and canceled travel arrangements from Boston to Florida this past weekend, that would have been a misrepresentation, correct? A. [have no idea what you're talking about. I'm sorry. Q. Well, what is it that you don't understand about that question? Either you were in -- A. The basis -- Q. -- Boston and were planning on traveling from Boston to Florida this past weekend or the last time you were in Boston was two weeks ago, so you couldn't have been planning -- A. I-- Q. -- on traveling from Boston to Florida. A. Iwas actually in Boston -- now that I checked my calendar, [ was actually in Boston -- here, | have -- aha. It says -- and my calendar says | was in Boston. Then it says leave for Florida, but that got changed. Yes, that got changed, right. Q. May | see that, please? A. No, this is my personal calendar. Q. Yes, I'm sorry, but if you refer to anything to refresh your recollection -- 23 (Pages 265 to 268) www.phippsreporting.com (888) 811-3408 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010805

wo MT A mM FF WN FH RMN NNN PBR BP BP RP RP POP Oe oe uk WD eH OO ON AO FF WKF OO A. Lhave ~- Q. -- during the course of the deposition, I am permitted to examine if. A. Ihave lawyer-client privileged information in here, so | can't give it to you. I can give it to you ina redacted form. [have a quote from David Boies in here, which I'm sure -- MR. SCOTT: Don't ~ A. - nobody is going to want to sce -- MR. SCOTT: We'll make a copy and give it to you. MR. SCAROLA: Thank you. Would you hand it to your counsel, please? MR. SCOTT: On that note, hold on to that. THE WITNESS: But I need that back. MR. SCOTT: Of course. Don't worry. MR. SIMPSON: Hold on to it. MR. SCOTT: That's why 1 gave it to him because I'd lose it. BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. Before January 21, 2015, what information did you have regarding what Bradley Edwards and Paul Cassell had gathered in the course of investigating the accuracy of Virginia Roberts' accusations against you? oO Omri nm FP WN NM NN NN FP PP BP HP HF He m FW nN FP Oo Oo OT Di eB WN FO Cassell had done in the course of their investigation of the credibility of the accusations made by Virginia Roberts against you? A. Well, first and foremost, the most important piece of information I had was my firm and complete knowledge and memory that I had never had any sexual contact with Virginia Roberts ever under any circumstances or any other underage girls. So I knew -- Q. The question I'm asking, sir -- A. -~ this information -- Q. - focuses on what knowledge you had regarding what Bradley Edwards and Paul Cassell did in the course of their investigation of the credibility of the accusations against you made by Virginia Roberts? A. That was the first and most important bit of information; namely, that | couldn't have done it and didn't do it. So L knew for sure that they could not have conducted any kind of valid investigation. Second, I knew from -- that they also had a letter from Mr. Scarola that said that multiple witnesses had placed me in the presence of Jeffrey Epstein and underage girls and | knew that Oo OA AUN ee WH NNNNN NP EH HB BP PP BP PE We WN HE Ow OANA UM PFW NPR OO A. Well, first, 1 knew that anything they gathered -- MR. INDYKE: Objection to the extent that requires -- MR. SCOTT: Whoa. MS. McCAWLEY: -- you to disclose anything you gave -- THE COURT REPORTER: I can't hear. I'm sorry, Mr. Indyke, can you repeat your objection? MR. SCOTT: Can you say that a little louder? MR. INDYKE: Darren Indyke. I would object to the extent that your answer would disclose anything you -- you obtained or learned or any knowledge you gained in connection with your representation of Jeffrey Epstein. MR. SCOTT: Do you understand that instruction? THE WITNESS: I do, yes. Could you repeat the question? BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. Yes, sir. | want to know what information you had regarding what Bradley Edwards and Paul oO ON KU PF WN NNNNNNEF PH PP PP PPB UP WN OO OAH ew NP Oo 272 Mr. Scarola's Icttcr was a patent lic. And they had access to that letter and that information. I also knew they were relying on depositions of two house people of Jeffrey Epstein. And I've read these two depositions. And I'm sure I knew of other -- other information as well. I knew that they had stated -- I knew that they had stated publicly, or you had stated publicly on their behalf as a witness, that you had stated publicly that you had tried to depose me on these -- on this subject. I knew that that was a blatant lie and uncthical conduct because nobody ever tried to depose me on this subject. [ had never been accused, nor did I have any knowledge that anybody had ever falsely accused me of having any sexual cncounters. And [had a great deal of information about the paucity or absence of any legitimate investigation. And Lalso knew that they hadn't called me, they hadn't tried to call me, there was no record of an attempt to call me or c-mail me. My e-mail is available on my website. My phone number is available on my website. The most basic thing they could have done, as courts have said, when you're accusing somebody 24 (Pages 269 to 272) www.phippsreporting.com (888) 811-3408 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010806

owoU MON HUM PW dH eH 273 of outrageous, horrible, inexcusable misconduct, at least call the person and ask them if they can disprove it before you file a -- a statement. Not even asking for a hearing on it, not even basically seeking to prove it, just -- just putting it in a pleading as if scrolling on a bathroom stall. So, yes, | had -- I had a great basis for making that kind of statement and I repeat it here today. And we will find out in depositions what basis they actually had. And I'm anxiously awaiting Mr. Cassell's deposition this afternoon. MR. SCAROLA: Move to strike the non-responsive portion of that answer. Could I have a standing objection to unresponsive -- MR. SCOTT: Sure. MR. SCAROLA: -- answers? That would be helpful. Thank you. I appreciate that. That will save us -- MR. SCOTT: Absolutely. No, any time. MR. SCAROLA: -- save us some time. MR. SCOTT: Thank you, sir. BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. The one portion of what you just said that directly responded to my question was you knew in | oO orn nu PW dh NN NNNN FP RFP BP PP RP BP BP Re BR UP WHF OO MYA YH PWNR OO 275 your assertion that the testimony of these two individuals completely exculpates you. A. Uh-huh. Q. The following question was asked of -- MR. SCOTT: What you are reading from? MR. SCAROLA: I'm reading from the deposition transcript. BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. The following question was asked of ~ MR. SCOTT: The deposition transcript -- BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. -- of Mr. Juan - Mr. Juan Alessi and -- MR. SCOTT: Let me object to the -- first of all, let me object to this format because he has not been provided a part of the deposition. You're reading portions from the deposition -- MR. SCAROLA: Yes, Iam. MR. SCOTT: -- which can be taken out of context. He has not had the ability to review the deposition. This is improper. MR. SCAROLA: Okay. MR. SCOTT: Cross-examination, BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. Do you recall the following questions having been asked of Mr. Alessi and the following 274 early January of 2015 that Bradley Edwards and Paul Cassell had the sworn testimony of two - did you refer to them as house -- A. House people. . House staff? . House staff. . House staff of Jeffrey Epstein's -- . That's right. . —- correct? And those two individuals are Juan Alessi and Alfredo Rodriguez, correct? A. That's right. Q. And you, in fact, were aware of the existence of that testimony from shortly after the time that the testimony was given, weren't you? A. Well, I was certainly aware of it at the time | made these statements. Q. Yes, sir. But you also knew as far back as 2009, when this sworn testimony was given, that you were specifically identified by name in the sworn testimony of Jeffrey Epstein's house staff members, right? A. Iwas identified by name in a manner that completely exculpated me, yes. Q. Okay. Well, let's -- let's take a look at Oo OIA NB WH PE NNNNN NP PF BP BH eB oe ee UP wndeH CHK OANA UU BwWNRH OO 276 answers have been given during the course of this deposition which you contend completely exonerates you? "Question: Do yeu have any recollection of VR, referring to Virginia Roberts, coming to the house when Prince Andrew was there? "Answer: It could have been, but I'm not sure. "Question: When Mr. Dershowitz was visiting -- "Answer: Uh-huh. "Question: -- how often did he come? "Answer: He came pretty -- pretty often. I would say at least four or five times a year. "Question: And how long would he stay typically? “Answer: Two to three days. "Question: Did he have massages sometimes when he was there? “Answer: Yes. A massage was like a treat for everybody. If they wanted, we call the massage, and they get -- excuse me -- and they have a massage. "Question: You said that you set up the inassage tables, and would you also set up the 25 (Pages 273 to 276) www.phippsreporting.com (888) 811-3408 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010807

wow oma Ho Pw nd NNN NNN BB Be OH Be Be Be oe Be oH “RW NF OO OIA OR WN FO oils and towels? “Answer: Yes, ma'am. "Question: And did you ever have occasion to go upstairs and clean up after the massages? "Answer: Yeah, uh-huh. “Question: Did you ever find any vibrators in that area? “Answer: Yes. I told him yes. "Question: Would you describe for me what kinds of vibrators you found? "Answer: I'm not too familiar with the names, but they were like big dildos, what they call the big rubber things like that (indicating). And I used to go and put my gloves on and pick them up, put them in the sink, rinse it off and put it in Ms. Maxwell -- Ms, Maxwell had in her closet, she had like a laundry basket. And you put laundry in. She have full of those toys.” Is that testimony that exonerates you, Mr. Dershowitz? Is that what you were referring to? MR. SCOTT: Let me -- objection to the form, improper cross examination by taking excerpts out of depositions of witnesses. wo ont HU FP WD NNNNN FPP BP BP ee PB BB BWNF OM MO YH UM PWN O 279 is a third-year student at Harvard, were all there with me. That was the only time that I stayed over more than one night. And I never stayed even onc night during the relevant timeframe. But most importantly, he gives no timeframe. And clearly his reference to the sex toys is a reference to the part of the house that I was never permitted in and never entered. Q. What is the question that you think you were answering? A. Whether -- MR. SCOTT: He was explaining to you exactly why he felt that that was inappropriate, which is exactly what you asked him. MR. SCAROLA: No, it is not. MR. SCOTT: Well, it is my recollection, so I don't know -- MR. SCAROLA: Well, then -- MR. SCOTT: 1| think he was defending -- MR. SCAROLA: Let me try the same question over again. MR. SCOTT: I think he was defending his -- his position. THE WITNESS: Right. 278 BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. Is it your contention that that testimony, under oath, of your friend, Mr. Epstein's staff person, exonerates yon? A. First, a little background. Mr. Alessi was fired for theft of material from Mr. Epstein, so Mr. Alessi was not on a friendly basis with Jeffrey Epstein. Second, the description of the dildos and sex toys clearly refers to the area of the house that | was never in, the area of Ms. Maxwell's room, rather than the area of the room that I stayed in. Third, he gives no timeframe for the visits. And, fourth, he certainly didn't in any way confirm that | was there while Virginia Roberts was there. His answer was simply that | was there from time to time. He's wrong about that. During the relevant timeframe, I was never in the house. And even taking outside the relevant timeframe, the only time I was in the house for more than one day was when my family, my wife, my son, my daughter-in-law, my then probably seven or eight-year-old granddaughter, who just graduated Harvard, and my probably four-year-old grandson, who BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. The question was: Is that part of the time that you claim exonerates you? A. Well, I think if you read the whole testimony, it clearly exonerates me and | think that part of the testimony in no way inculpates me and no reasonable person reading that could use that as a basis for making allegations that I had sexual encounters or misconduct with Virginia Roberts. So, when -- if that's the best testimony that your unprofessional clients relied on, then clearly that exonerates me. Again, the absence of evidence is evidence of absence. And the very idea that this is seen as some basis for concluding that I had sexual encounters with -- with Virginia Roberts, why wasn't he asked did he ever see me have a massage by Virginia Roberts? Did he ever see me have a sexual encounter with Virginia Roberts? Did he ever go to the room I was staying in and find any sex toys? The answers to all those questions, if truthful, would be no. Q. What was Mr. Alessi's motive against you? You've told us he was fired by Jeffrey Epstein, so he may have had some motive against Mr, Epstein. 26 (Pages 277 to 280) www.phippsreporting.com (888) 811-3408 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010808

oOnrat nu FWD NNNNNNFPPRP PP EP BP PP OUPWNHH OWA YH UA WNE O wo wmwmrH nM @ WD NNNNN DY HBP we ew ee Pe EY MO @ WN FH Oo WO WAH WU FW NY FF OD 281 What was his motive against you? A. I was Jeffrey Epstein’s friend and lawyer and, in fact -- well, I can't get into this. But I can say this, I gave advice -- MR. SCOTT: Be careful about anything involving -- THE WITNESS: Okay. MR. SCOTT: -- Mr. Epstein, please. A. He could easily have believed that 1 was one of the causes of his firing. BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. So, he was -- he may have been angry at you because you assisted in getting him fired? A. It's -- MR. SCOTT: Objection, mischaracterization. A. It's conjecture. It's possible. But in any event, even -- BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. It's conjecture, is that what you were about to say? A. I'm saying I have -- I don't know what he was thinking, but there is a basis for him believing that. But most -- most important, even if you take everything he says as true, which it's not, it's wo Owas HAM FW NY NN NN NN MH eb Rob pop pp be OB WN HE OO ON AH B@ WRK eH OO 283 A. Yes. Q. A man who would never undertake to advance the cause of a client whom he believed to be incredible, right? A. Yes. And a man who told me and a man who -- MR. SCOTT: That's it. A. Okay. And aman who believes I'm innocent. BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. You knew that Bob Josefsberg would never file charges on behalf of a client alleging that she was lent out by Jeffrey Epstein for purposes of sexual abuse while she was a minor to academicians unless he absolutely had confidence that those statements were true -- MR. SCOTT: Let me object - BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. ~~ right? MR. SCOTT: -- that this is completely irrelevant to the issues in this case. Whatever Mr. Josefsberg thinks has nothing to do with this lawsuit. This is all your effort to try to put Josefsberg into this case to try to give some justification to your position. 282 exculpatory because it has no suggestion that | ever had any sexual encounter with Virginia Roberts. And if | were a lawyer reading that -- MR. SCOTT: It’s okay? A. -- [certainly would not base this heinous accusation on that flimsy read. BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. You know the context in which that deposition was taken, den't you? A. I don't recall it as I'm sitting here today. Q. Do you remember that the lawsuit in which that deposition was taken was a lawsuit in which Virginia Roberts was being represented by Bob Josefsberg? A. No. Q. You know Bob Josefsberg, don't you? A. We -- we were classmates at law school. Q. You know Bob Josefsberg to be an extremely ethical, highly professional and extraordinarily well-respected lawyer, right? . Absolutely, yes. . Absolutely? . Yeah. A man of impeccable honesty and integrity? Ww oarnnauth WNP NNNNNNFPRPP RPP PB Pep OBWNHF Oban nuhwWNHHO A. Tl answer that question. BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. Thank you. A. And also know Bob Josefsberg and know that he would never maintain a friendship, as he has with me, if he believed that | was one of the, quote, academicians -- Q. Well, how about — A. -- with whom -- Q. -- answering my question -- MR. SCOTT: Wait a minute. No, no, no. A. You're going to let me finish. BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. Lknow I'm going to go, but I don't have to like it — MR. SCOTT: Yeah, but -- BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. ~- when you're not being responsive to the questions that are being asked. MR. SCOTT: Yeah, but you're interjecting ~ BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. And -- MR. SCOTT: You're interjecting questions that are irrelevant utilizing Bob Josefsberg's 27 (Pages 281 to 284) www.phippsreporting.com (888) 811-3408 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010809

an nam &@ WN 285 relationship with him and he has an ability to justify and explain his position in response -- MR. SCAROLA: [If it's responsive to the question. A. It's responsive. And as far as the filibustering is -- BY MR. SCAROLA: . Do you remember what the question is? . ois concerned, I was here -- . Do you remember what the question was? . Yes. Yes. What is the question? . The question is -- no, why don't you repeat the question. Q. Yes, sir. A. So- Q. You know that Bob Josefsberg would not advance allegations on behalf of a client that that client had been lent out by Jeffrey Epstein to satisfy the sexual desires of friends of Jeffrey Epstein, including academicians, unless Bob Josefsberg believed those allegations to be true, right? A. 1 believe that -- | know that Bob Josefsberg would never maintain a friendship with worn nu &F WN NNNNNN BH eB eB Oe Oe Oe oe oe oe Ue WN ODO MON THU FB WN OO 287 the people who the FBI had put on the -- the list. I just don't know what his responsibility was. I can say with confidence that he would only act ethically and would, A, not represent -- not make any false statements the way your clients made them, and that I wish your clients had the ethics of Bob Josefsberg. Q. You then agree that if Bob Josefsberg advanced the claims that I have described ina complaint on behalf of a client, he would not have done so unless he believed those allegations to be truc, having conducted a fair and reasonable investigation, correct? MR. SCOTT: Objection, asked and answered several times. A. I don't know the answer to that question because | don't know the context in which he made these arguments. All I do know is that he never would maintain a friendship with me if he believed in any way that I was one of the people that she had accused. BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. Did Alfredo Rodriguez, another one of your friend's staff persons, have a motive to lic against you? wo oawag ra HY PWN NNNNN YN HB HP BF BP BP BP OB OP oe OB WNHH OW MIA U BH wWN RO 286 me, as he has, if he believed that | was one of those academicians. Bob Josefsberg knows that | was not one of those academicians, and the inference of your question is beneath contempt, sir. Q. Could we try to answer the question now? A. The answer is that Bob Josefsberg would never maintain a friendship with me if he believed that there was any possibility that I was among the academicians who she was accusing of sexual misconduct. I do not believe that she ever accused me of sexual misconduct to Bob Josefsberg, to the FBI, to the U.S. attorney, or even, sir, to you and Bradley Edwards, as she says in 2000, I think, 'IL. 1 think she made up this story on the eve of the filing in 2014. Q. You do agree that Bob Josefsberg would not have advanced the claims that he advanced if he did not have confidence that they were true, correct? A. {have no idea what he believed or knew at the time. I would say this: [ know Bob Josefsberg is an extraordinarily ethical lawyer. I don’t know what his responsibilities were in the case. I don't know whether his responsibilities were to make those kinds of judgments or whether his responsibility was simply to make sure that money was paid to each of aw nam &@ WN NNNNN NF BBR PP HP HR PH vB Wd FP OO ON THM WN HF OW A. Alberto Rodriguez -- Q. No, sir, Alfredo Rodriguez. A. Alfredo Rodriguez, I never knew him by name. He was, of course, there out -- well outside of the timeframe of the alleged events in this case. And so anything that he would be able to testify to would bear no relationship whatsoever to the -- the allegations here. He was criminally prosecuted, to my memory, for having stolen material and turned it over to Bradley Edwards is my recollection. And as the result of that clearly had a motive to lie. And the same with Mr. Alessi, clearly would have a basis for believing that I may have played a role as Jeffrey Epstein's lawyer in seeking to do harm to him. But again, there’s nothing in Mr. Rodriguez's testimony which is in any way inculpatory of me. I think he has me sitting and -- and reading a book and drinking a glass of wine. . In the presence of young women? . No. No? 28 (Pages 285 to 288) www.phippsreporting.com (888) 811-3408 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010810

oN Am Wd -- believe that. . recall the following testimony -- . It wouldn't be true if he said it. Q. Yes, sir. Weill, do you recall the following testimony having been given by Mr. Alfredo Rodriguez in a deposition that was taken on August 7, 2009? "Question: Mr. Rodriguez, you stated last time that there were guests at the house, frequent guests from Harvard. Do you remember that testimony? "Answer: Yes, ma'am, "Question: Was there a lawyer from Harvard named Alan Dershowitz? "Answer: Yes, ma'am, "Question: And are you familiar with the fact that he's a famous author and famous lawyer? "Answer: Yes, ma'am, "Question: How often during the six months or so that you were there was Mr. Dershowitz there? “Answer: Two or three times. "Question: And did you have any knowledge of why he was visiting there? that testimony? A. Yes. MR. SCOTT: Objection. This is totally improper cross exainination of a witness by trying to use a deposition. The only purpose of doing this is to interject this into the record, which has no relevance and would not be admissible at trial. And in any case, he never actually has my client doing any of the things that you've accused him of. Go ahead, let's go ahead and do it. Answer the question. Answer the question. MR. SCAROLA: He did. A. Yes, [remember that. MR. SCAROLA: He said yes. A. Yes, [remember that, yes. BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. And do you know why it was that back in 19 -- excuse me, back in 2009, August of 2009, four and a half years before you allege that this story about you was being made up out of whole cloth, that lawyers representing Jeffrey Epstein's victims, including Katherine Ezell, E-Z-E-L-L from Bob Josefsberg's office, who had filed the complaint alleging that you had -- excuse me, that Virginia 290 "Answer: No, ma‘am. "Question: You don’t know whether or not he was a lawyer acting as a lawyer or whether he was there as a friend? “Answer: I believe as a friend. “Question: Were there also young ladies in the house at the time he was there? "Answer: Yes, ma'am. "Question: And would those have included, for instance, Sarah Kellen, Nada Marcinkova? "Answer: Yes, ma'am. “Question: Were there other young ladies there when Mr. Dershowitz was there? “Answer: Yes, ma'am. "Question: Do you have any idea who those young women were? "Answer: No, ma'am. "Question: Were there any of these -- excuse me. Were any of these young women that you have said came to give massages? “Answer: Yes, ma'‘ant." Do you recall that testimony having been given -- A. Yes. Q. -— and those answers having been given to oOo DN KH F&F WD EK NNNNN NB eH BP Be ee Re oR oR mf WN KF OO WoW OT HD Mm PW DN PH 292 Roberts had been lent out for sexual purposes to academicians, were asking specific questions about you? Do you know why it was in 2009 they were doing that? A. have no idea that it happened. And I imagine that they had a list of every academic that was in the house. Probably included -- MR. SCOTT: | want to object to this whole procedure because you're taking pieces out of - the record and not reading other pieces that totally absolve my client. For example, there's testimony by him that says -- MR. SCAROLA: Is this an objection? MR. SCOTT: Yes, it's a statement into the record just like you're putting into the record. There's -- | want to show this to my client and refresh his memory as to some other testimony by this witness -- MR. SCAROLA: There's no question pending as to what you can -- as to what you can refresh your client's memory. What you are doing is coaching him. MR. SCOTT: No, I'm not. MR. SCAROLA: Inproperly. MR. SCOTT: And you are improperly reading 29 (Pages 289 to 292) www.phippsreporting.com (888) 811-3408 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010811

wo On Nu fF Ww NN NM NNN PHP PP RP BP oe Bp UR WD HF OW MOAN HUBWNP OO 293 excerpts out of a deposition to try to imply something when there's other parts that totally are inconsistent with that. And if you're going to do that, then he has the ability under our rules to review the entire transcript of the deposition and that's what I'm permitting him to do, just like when we're in court. MR. SCAROLA: What I ain doing, Mr. Scott -- what | am doing, Mr. Scott -- MR. SCOTT: Have you read that now, sir? MR. SCAROLA: -- is reviewing the evidence that was relied upon by Bradley Edwards and by Paul Cassell in coming to the conclusion that the allegations that had been made by Virginia Roberts were, in fact, credible allegations. MR. SCOTT: And I'm -- MR. SCAROLA: Because your own client has acknowledged that this is information that was available to both him and to them back in 2009. MR. SCOTT: And what I am doing is showing him portions of the same deposition that totally take a different position from this witness from what you have read, so that this record is a complete record and not a partial record with your inference only. And I feel wo orn AU BP WN NNNNN NFP FPP BP HPP BP eB Be uP WNOrF OM ON HOB WNP O that that's totally appropriate. If we were in a courtroom, a judge would permit him to do it. So you have your position and I have mine. MR. SWEDER: Can we have the witness read that? BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. Do you recall the following testimony having been given in that same deposition? "Question: Allright. This is follow-up to questioning by Ms. Ezell. Ms. Ezell asked you about Mr. Dershowitz being present in Mr. Epstein's home, and I think you said -- I think you said Mr. Epstein and he and Mr. Dershowitz were friends? “Answer: Yes. “Question: She also, I think, asked was Mr. Dershowitz ever there when one of the young women who gave a massage was present in the home. “Answer: I don't remember that. "Question: That's where I want to clear up. Is it your testimony that Mr. Dershowitz was there when any of the women came to Mr. Epstein's home to give a massage? "Answer: Yes." wow on nm bP WN NN NN NN FP RP FP RP RP RP RP RP OP oH mW NY FP oO fo MAI HO FP WN FP Oo 295 Do you remember that testimony having been given? A. lassume that when your clients used the transcript as a basis for their false conclusion that I was guilty, they read the whole transcripts, not just the -- BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. Every word. MR. SCOTT: Don't interrupt him. BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. You don't need to assume that. 1 will stipulate they read every word. MR. SCOTT: Mr. Scarola, he's speaking. You don't have a right to do this. A. And if you read every word, you will see that it's totally exculpatory, that I have no idea whether there were any young women in one part of the house when I was in another part of the house. It's completely consistent with my testimony that | have never seen any underage women. Let's see. And if you read the whole transcript, you'll see, | think: "Was Dershowitz ever there when one of the woman gave a Massage? "I don't remember that. wnornonau fF WN NN NN NYP PP PY PP Oe eo PWN eH OW AANA UM BWNHRH OO "Were you in -- were you in any way attempting in your response to imply that Mr. Dershowitz had a massage by one of these young ladies? "T don't know, sir. "You have no knowledge? "No, sir. "And you certainly weren't implying that that occurred; you just have no knowledge, correct? “Answer: I don't know." And I would hope that your clients would be reading the whole thing in context, unlike what you've tried to do to try to create a false impression that this testimony in any way exculpates me. I have to say if this is what they relied on, my confirmation of their unethical and unprofessional conduct has been strongly corroborated by that and you're helping my case. BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. Would it have been reasonable for Bradley Edwards and Paul Cassell to have relied upon the detailed reports of Palm Beach police department? A. 1 don't know. I don't know what the Palm 30 (Pages 293 to 296) www.phippsreporting.com (888) 811-3408 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010812

wo Ory DU WN F NNN NNN HH BH Be oe oe Be Be Re AB WNE OCW OIA HM BWNR OO Beach police department says. Q. You never read those reports? A. I don't know which reports you're referring to. Q. All of the reports about Jeffrey Epstein. MR. SCOTT: Asked and answered yesterday on this whole line. A. I probably did not read all the reports on Jeffrey Epstein. I'm sure I've read some of them. I do not reeall -- MR. SCOTT: Be careful about any work -- attorney-client privilege. THE WITNESS: Right. A. I don't remember my name coming up. [ was the lawyer during that period of time. BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. To the extent that Bradley Edwards and Paul Cassell relied upon detailed reports from the Palm Beach police department in order to assess the credibility of Virginia Roberts, would it be reasonable for them to rely upon police reports? A. I would hope that they would rely on all the police reports, including the ones that showed that she was involved in criminal actions, including the ones that would show that she took money as an wo on Dm Bw NH NNNNNN BH ee eB eB Ep Oe wWwN HF Ow MAHAN AWN PR O this. A. Excuse me one second. MR. SCOTT: You know, you think this is funny and I think this man's -- and I think this man's -- MR. SCAROLA: I think it's improper for you to be coaching the witness in the middle of examination. If you think that there's something that needs to be brought out, you do that in cross examination. You don't feed him information that you want him to be reading in the middle of my examination of this witness. MR. SCOTT: No. But it's also true that under our rules, when you read portions of a deposition, he has the ability to read other portions of the deposition which clarify the answers. That's done in every courtroom on every time a witness -- you have selected portions of it that are not accurate based on other portions and I am having him review them since you did not offer him the deposition to review. MR. SCAROLA: And that's what you do -- MR. SCOTT: And I think that's totally proper -- wo ony Dm FF WH PH NN NPP BB pe Be Rp NP OU MNYHA HB WN HO 298 adult to provide sexual services to people. I] would hope they would look at all the reports, not just selected portions of those reports. Q. Would that include the reports of the Federal Bureau of Investigation? A. I would hope so. Q. Would that include the information provided by the U.S. Attorney's Office? A. lL would sure hope so, and I could tell you that the -- Q. Would that include - A. Let me just say that the U.S. Attorney's Office lias told me unequivocally that my name never came up in any context of any accusation against me during the negotiations. Q. Is this part of your work product that you're waiving right now? MR. SWEDER: No, no. A. My conversation with Jeffrey Sloman is not work product. MR. SCOTT: Here's a -- BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. What is the work product -- MR. SCOTT: Excuse me. Please review wo MwA HM B@ WHY NNNNN NPP PP BP RP BP RP oP UR WNH OU MIAN BW NRF O 300 MR. SCAROLA: -- in cross examination. It is -- MR. SCOTT: -- todo. No -- MR. SCAROLA: -- improper. MR. SCOTT: No. MR. SCAROLA: There's no question pending as to which that's relevant. But let's take a look at what you're showing him. MR. SCOTT: Sure. Why don't you read it into the record? THE WITNESS: I've read it. MR. SCOTT: Read it into the record so that Mr. Scarola is advised. A. "Okay. When Alan Dershowitz was in the. house, | understand you to say that these local Palm Beach girls would come over to the house while he was there, but you're not sure if he had a massage from any of these girls? "Exactly. “And what would he do while these girls were in the house? “He would read a book with a glass of wine by the pool, stay inside. "Did he ever talk to any of the girls? "Il don't know, sir. 31 (Pages 297 to 300) www.phippsreporting.com (888) 811-3408 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010813

oo Od HO bP WN NNNNNN PP PB RP RE RP RB oe AW bWNHH OO ONAN BWNH OO oy MONI HUM ew WN "Certainly he knew they were there? "T don't know, sir." That's the best you can do? That's really the best you can do? You think a professional lawyer would make these allegations based on "I don't know, sir." MR. SCAROLA: Is there a question pending, Mr. Scott? MR. SCOTT: He's reading -- you asked him what he was reading -- MR. SCAROLA: Yes, sir. MR. SCOTT: -- from and I had him publish it. MR. SCAROLA: Yeah, I know, and then he went on to make a speech. So I know I don't have to do it, but I'm compelled to move to strike the unresponsive speeches. MR. SCOTT: And I consider these to be a response to the interrogation that you did taking excerpts improperly and not having the entire record in front of him, which he's entitled to do to make that the record is complete. And | intend to protect him in that way. oO On DUM fF WN NNN NNN BH BB BB BB op po OP WNH Oo OANA UM B@ wWN BO 303 A. Let me answer. "Rely" connotes to me that they would place a heavy emphasis on that to the exclusion of other things and that it would be enough. And so my answer is, yes, they certainly should have read all the reports. They certainly should have read all the transcripts. But they also should have called me, they should have made other inquiry, and they should have made sure that they read all of these depositions and reports in context. And if you're implying that there are FBI reports that in any way inculpate me, that's inconsistent with the information I have from Former Chief of Assistant Jeffrey Sloman, who was prepared to file an affidavit saying that that wasn't the case but was prevented from doing so by the Justice Department. MR. SCOTT: It's about noon now. So I guess we're heading -- we're wrapping this up? MR. SCAROLA: Not quite yet. BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. You do agree that the allegations that Virginia Roberts made against Prince Andrew were well-founded allegations, correct? A. Ihave absolutely no idea. I've met 302 BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. So we have agreed that it was reasonable for Bradley Edwards and Paul Cassell, in assessing the credibility of Virginia Roberts, to rely upon police reports, FBI reports, U.S. Attorney's Office information, and information from the Palin Beach County State Attorney's Office, correct? A. No. Q. No? A. No. It would not be enough for them to do that -- Q. I didn't ask you whether it was enough. A. You said it was -- Q. Lasked you: Would it reasonable for them to rely upon those sources of information in assessing the credibility of Virginia Roberts? A. Not alone, not without looking at -- Q. That wasn't ny question. A. -- other sources of information. MR. SCOTT: Wait a minute. BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. Well, what he's relying upon -- MR. SCOTT: You're not the judge here. Let him -- ask a question and let him answer it and not cut him off, please. oo OW HO & WN a ee HOM MON HAM Bw NH OO 304 Prince Andrew on a number of occasions in a public context. He came and spoke in my class at Harvard law school. The dean then had a dinner in his -- or lunch in his honor. I was then invited to a dinner at the British Consulate. I've never seen him in the presence of any underaged women, so I have absolutely no basis for reaching any conclusion whatsoever about Prince Andrew. Q. So you don’t know one way or another whether those allegations are true or false? A. Neither do you. Nobody would know except two people, I imagine. But I don't know. Of course . All right. A. But I presume -- . You say you have never seen him ~- A. -- people innocent -- Q. -in the presence of any underaged women, but you've seen photographs of him in the presence of an underaged woman, correct? A. Thave, yes. MR. SCAROLA: May we mark this as the next numbered exhibit, please. A. And I want to note -- 32 (Pages 301 to 304) www.phippsreporting.com (888) 811-3408 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010814

wo ony Dn WH PF WH NNNNNN BP BE ee pe pp A PUN HE OO OY AH eB WHF OO wo On DY PP Wd BH NNNNN DN HH eH eB ee ER “URW HEH COM ANY AU AW NHR OO THE REPORTER: Hold on. Hold on. A, -- the absence of any -- MR. SCOTT: She can't take it down. THE WITNESS: Sorry. (Thereupon, marked as Plaintiff Exhibit 8.) THE REPORTER: It's okay. Go ahead. A. And | want to note the absence of any photograph of me with Virginia Roberts. BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. That's the photograph that you were referring to? A. I've seen this photograph in the newspapers. Q. Yes, sir. And the woman on the far right of that photograph, who is that? A. Ghislaine Maxwell. Q. The woman that you and your friend Jeffrey Epstein have traveled with repeatedly, correct? A. No. A woman who | may have traveled with on two or three occasions. J can't think of more times than that that 1 traveled with her, but it's possible. But not -- I wouldn't say repeated occasions. I've -- Q. Well -- ow OND YH PB WD 307 THE WITNESS: Excuse me, I need to a take a very quick bathroom break. MR. SCAROLA: That's fine. THE WITNESS: Probably be two minutes or less than two minutes. VIDEOGRAPHER: Going off the record. The time is approximately 12:03 p.m. (Sidebar held off the record.) MR. SCAROLA: While we're waiting, let me mark the next numbered exhibits as well, That will save us some time. MR. SCOTT: What is this? MR. SCAROLA: Her calendar, his calendar. MR. SCOTT: Who's calendar is this, Carolyn's? MR. SCAROLA: Okay. This is Number 10. MR. SCOTT: Carolyn's calendar. (Thereupon, marked as Plaintiff Exhibit 10.) MR. SCAROLA: This is Number 11. (Thereupon, marked as Plaintiff Exhibit 11.) MR. SCAROLA: This is Number 12. (Thereupon, marked as Plaintiff Exhibit 12.) 306 : A. -- probably been in her presence fewer than a dozen times. Q. I'm going to hand you -- A. But just to be clear, what I knew about Ghislaine Maxwell was that she was the daughter of a prominent British publisher -- Q. Lhaven't asked you what you knew about Ghislaine Maxwell. I asked you —- A. Well, you asked -- Q. -- whether or not you recognized her in the photograph? A. Yes. Yes. Q. Thank you very much, sir. I'm going to hand you an airport codes log that identifies the airports that are identified by abbreviations in the case -- in case that is of some assistance to you in answering the next series of questions that I'm about to ask you. A. Right. Q. And I'm going to hand you this composite exhibit, which we will mark as the next numbered composite. A. Uh-huh, right. (Thereupon, marked as Plaintiff Exhibit 9.) BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. Mr. Dershowitz, I have handed you a composite exhibit that is marked as Number 9. A. Yes. Q. The first document in that composite is a page from -- MR. SCOTT: Here's Number 9. BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. is a page from your wife's calendar; is that correct? A. Yes. MR. SCOTT: Take a moment to review the exhibit, please. A. Yes, it looks like -- I'm looking at the first page. It looks like my wife's -- my wife's handwriting, yes. BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. And the second page is another page from your wife's calendar; is that correct? A. Looks like it, yes. Q. And — MR. SCOTT: Take the time to review it before you answer questions, please. A. Right. 33 (Pages 305 to 308) www.phippsreporting.com (888) 811-3408 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010815

to OMA HM FF WN NNN NNN YH ew ew eH eH eB BoB NP WN MH O to OI HU PW HO 309 BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. And can you determine from the calendar entries here where your wife is during the period of time that's covered by these calendar entries? A. I would have to look at a particular entry. If it describes where she is, yes. Q. Okay. Well, tell me where she is. A. What day? MR. SCOTT: Which one? What point? BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. The period covered by this calendar between December 7 and December 13. A. What year? Q. You know what, I can't tell you what year it is from these calendars. So you tell me. I suggest to you that this is a calendar from December of 2000, since the next two months at the top of the calendar are January 2001 and February 2001. So let's assume that since it is a page from a calendar that appears to be December of 2000, that it's December of 2000. That would be a reasonable conclusion, wouldn't it? A. [have no idea. Q. You don't know? oo On HM &@ WY 3412 December. Q. One shows the subsequent two months and the -- A. Okay. Q. -- other one shows -- A. Yes. Q. -- the preceding and following month, correct? A. Yes, that does look like it's December of 2000, yes. Q. Okay, sir. So look at the calendar and tell me where it appears your wife is during this period of time. A. The whole period of time? MR. SCOTT: Picase read the exhibit, all the pages, thoroughly, so that you have a full context. A. It says, A.D. in Boston. That means I was in -- in Boston. It says Charleston, New York. It says book fair. It says book fair. It says A.D. in Boston. It then says the Halbrciches arrive. They -- they were probably our gucsts. 310 A. I don't know. I mean, { don't know -- you said you don't -- you can't tell what the year is, so -- Q. Well, I'm telling -- A. -- [can't tell what the year is. Q. -- you that it appears to be December 2000 because the next two months at the top of the calendar are January of 2001 and February of 2001. A. [only see -- I'm sorry, we're probably looking at different things. [ see November 2000, December 2000. [ don't see January or anything like that. Maybe you can show them to me. Oh, it's on the first page. Q. First page, yes, sir. A. So it's in reverse order. Yeah, so the pages are in reverse order. The first page says on top January 2001, February 2001 and the second page says November 2000, December 2000, yeah. Q. So it appears we're looking at December 2000, correct? A. When we're looking at which page? When we -- Q. Both pages. A. Well, one is January/February and one is wo ord numb Wn Pe NNNNN NEY He eH He BB Me WN eH Cw ONY AU PWN HO BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. Your guests at home in Cambridge, Massachusetts, right? A. No, i don't know. [ don't know. Halbreiches arrive. And I can't really tell from here where Carolyn is. McDonalds -- let's see, this is 2000 and what year? 2001. 2000. Yeah, yeah. So tell me what you're looking for. I'll try to -- Q. I want to know where your wife was during this period of time if you can tell from the calendar entries. A. Well, she may have been in -- there's something about Charleston. There's something about New York. There's something about me being in Boston. | really can't tell much beyond that. Q. Okay. So you don't know one way or another from these calendar entries where your wife was during this period of time; is that correct? A. [can't tell that from this entry, no. Q. What we can tell from the entry in the bottom right-hand corner -- MR. SCOTT: Which page? A. Which page? 34 (Pages 309 to 312) www.phippsreporting.com (888) 811-3408 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010816

ow ony KDW FF WN BP NNNNNN PP RP RP RP oP oR oR RoR Woe WNP Ow ON AY Bw NP OO wo oI DM F WN bP NNNNN NE BE PP Be PP oP RP Pb We WN FE OW ON DH ew NP OO BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. Of the first page of this composite is that there is a notation that says Alan Dershowitz 11:45 a.m., New York City, right? A. Eleven -- A.D. 11:45 and then there's a word that I can't read. Q. How about a.m.? A. Oh, 5:00 a.m., New York City, yes. Q. Okay. Thank you, sir. And the next page, where did -- where did your wife have opera instructions? A. Ihave no idea. We go to the opera in Boston, we go to the opera in New York, we go to the opera in Florida. We do a lot -- a lot of opera. I don't know what "opera instructions" means. Maybe it would be best if you asked my wife about these things. It's her calendar. Q. }--Lintend to, sir, but A. Sure. Q. -- these are calendars that you produced as part of the evidence that you contend exonerates you. So, } assumed that you had some knowledge of the meaning of these pages. A. No. Q. But f may be wrong. A. We have -- Q. So you're telling me that you don't know where she was and that's -- A. We just -- we just gave you everything we had ~- MR. SCOTT: We provided hundreds and hundreds of pages. You're picking out one. BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. Let's go -- let's go to the next page, if we could, please, the third page in this composite. A. The third, okay. Third, okay. Q. And can we agree that this is a calendar from December of 2000? A. Yes. Q. Can we agree it's your calendar from December of 2000? A. That's right, yeah. Q. And can we also agree that during this period of time, you were making regular appearances in New York on Court TV? MR. SCOTT: Review the document before you answer the question, please. A. It says 12/30, Court TV, yes. There was a period of time where I had a contract with Court TV and I would appear when they asked me to, yeah. ow ON DU PF WN bP BY MR. SCAROLA: . And you would appear in New York -- . Well, no -- . =~ for those Court TV appearances ~~ . Lwould appear -- . ona regular basis, correct? . Lwould appear wherever I was. So when I was in New York, | appeared in New York, but they would do it by remote when I was in a different city. And I clearly did some remotes for Court TV. Q. In fact, you took an apartment in New York for purposes of convenience to facilitate your New York Court TV appearances, correct? A. Totally false. Q. Did you have an apartment in New York during this period of time in December of 20007 A. [Thad an apartment for -- I've had an apartment in New York for 30 -- 30 years or more. But I certainly didn't take an apartment for purposes of Court TV, no. Q. On Tuesday, December 12, the entry is 1:30, Jeff, correct? A. Right. Yeah. Q. And that's a reference to Jeffrey Epstein, correct? . I don't -- I don't know. . Well, what other Jeff might it be? I know -- [ know many, many Jeffs. . Tell me which other Jeffs it might have been a reference to -- A. Ihave no idea. Q. -- on this calendar page. A. I just have no idea. I would be speculating. Q. During the same period of time on December 12 when there's a calendar entry that reflects 1:30, Jeff, we know from the flight logs that Jeffrey Epstein traveled on December 11 from Palm Beach International Airport to Teterboro Airport, which is the private plane facility that services the New York Metropolitan area. A. Ihave no idea. Q. You don't know? A. No, Ihave no idea whether he was on that plane. I haven't seen the flight log. Q. Well, I'm calling your attention to the flight log. It's the next page. A. It's the next page here? Q. Yes, sir. A. Okay. 35 (Pages 313 to 316) www.phippsreporting.com (888) 811-3408 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010817

w On DAU @ Ww NNNNNNHP EB BB ee ee YB “wk WN OW AN DMNeWNH O lo MOY HD WM fF WY NY NNNNNNEBPB BeBe eB eB UR WHE CO’ AIHA UhWNEO 317 Q. December 11, 2000, PBI to Teterboro, passengers, Jeffrey Epstein -- A. Wait asecond. | have to find it. MR. SCOTT: Well, let him -- let him read the exhibit. A. What -- what's the date? BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. December 11. A. December 11. Yes, I see that. Q. Palm Beach International Airport to Teterboro? A. Right, yeah. Q. Passengers, Jeffrey Epstein? A. Right, Q. GM, a reference to Ghislaine -- excuse me, Ghislaine Maxwell. A. Uh-huh. Q. And ET and Virginia, right? A. That's what it says, yes, sir. Q. And then we see three of the same four passengers leaving the New York area. A. Uh-huh. Q. To fly to another destination three days later on December 14, correct? A. Yes. 318 Q. And let's look at the next page of your wife's diary for December 13, the period of time when the flight log shows Jeffrey Epstein and Virginia in New York -- A. Uh-huh. Q. --at the same time when it would appear that you were in New York. And at the bottom of this calendar, Wednesday, December 13, A.D., massage, right? A. 10:00 a.m. it says? What is it? Q. It says 10, 10-A.D. massage? A. Yeah. Q. Okay. Let's go to the next composite. A. I don't have -- there's another page after that. Oh, the next composite. Q. Yes, sir. A. Yeah. Q. Composite Number 10. A. Uh-huh. But -- but I just want to be clear. So you're saying Carolyn was with me in New York during that period of time. Q. No, I'm not saying that at all, sir. I suggest that when we take a close look at the calendar, it's going to reveal something other than 319 that, but that you were in New York at the same time Jeffrey Epstein -- A. And that Carolyn -- Q. -- and Virginia were in New York and you were -- A. And that Carolyn arranged for a massage. Q. — having a massage. A, And that my wife arranged for a massage. Q. No, I didn't say that at all, sir? MR. SCOTT: Well, that’s what he's saying that the record reflects. A. The record -- MR. SCOTT: Don't cut him off. A. -- reflects that Carolyn -- Carolyn always wanted me to have massages because she thought it would relax me. I don't like massages particularly, but when Carolyn arranged massages, almost always we had them together at the same time. We would have the same masseuse, sometimes a man, sometimes a woman, come to the house and give us massages together. The idea that my wife would arrange for me to have a massage with an underage girl for sexual purposes is so bizarre and absurd as to defy any kind of credibility, but go on. BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. Yes. Thank you very much, sir. A. Goon. Q. Lintend -- MR. SCOTT: Since you're both smiling, there seemis to be some humor that I'm missing here. I guess I -- MR. SCAROLA: Well, I'm missing the humor too. BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. Let's go to Composite Exhibit Number 10. A. Yeah. Q. The first page of that composite exhibit is a photocopy of pages from your personal calendar in January 2001, correct? A. That's right, yes. Q. Another Court TV appearance on January 11, correct? A. January 1}. Q. Yes, sir. Thursday, January 11, entry in the left-hand column, Court TV. A. Entry on -- yes, January -- I see it as -- I see it on January 12. I don't sec it on January 11, but... 36 (Pages 317 to 320) www.phippsreporting.com (888) 811-3408 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010818

BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. I'm sorry, maybe it is January 12, but some time between the 11th and 12th, either on the 11th or on the 12th, it's Court TV, correct? A. No, no, no. You're just totally -- Q. It's the 12th — A. -- wrong -- if's the 12th, yes. Q. Okay. Good. Thank you. A. It's clearly stated on the 12, yeah. Q. Okay. And then on Friday, the 19th, a week later, another Court TV appearance, correct? A. 19th. Yes. Q. Okay. And on the 26th on Friday, another Court TV appearance, correct? A. That's what it says, yes. These were all ~ Q. During this period of time -- MR. SCOTT: Whoa. Let -- let him finish his answer. A. These are all scheduled appearances. | assume that | did them. These -- these were -- when they requested me to -- to do them, I would do them, yes. BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. Okay. And it looks like you're appearing Oo OI KD MN PW dN NNNNNN PF RP PH RP PP eR UP WH HEH Ow MN AU PWN PO 323 MR. SCOTT: Wait a minute. Let him get to it, A. 2 ofthe composite. Page 2, and what -- what day are we on? MR. SWEDER: Do we even have it? MR. SCOTT: I'm sorry. Excuse me. Do we have copies of this exhibit? MR. SCAROLA: I've given you copies of everything -- THE WITNESS: Were these produced in discovery? MR. SCOTT: I assume. A, Okay. What are we up to? What page? BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. Page 2 of Composite Exhibit Number 10. MR. SCOTT: Okay. Now, stop. BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. Tuesday, the 16th. MR. SCOTT: What year are we talking about now? MR. SCAROLA: 2001, the only year covered in this composite exhibit. A. Yeah, dinner foreign policy Epstein, that was dinner we had at Jeffrey Epstein's house with a group of very distinguished foreign policy experts, wo Oman HU PWD NNNNN NB BE Pe ee eB ER PWN HH Ol MN HUM PWN PO 322 on a scheduled basis every Friday during this period of time? A. | don't think that was right. Yeah, I don't think that was right. I think that they called me when they wanted me. And it may have been several Fridays in a row, but | think it depended on breaking news at the -- Q. Whatis "scheduled appearance" -- MR. SCOTT: Well, wait a minute. Let him finish his questions [sic]. A. It would depend very much on whether there was a particular trial because 1 would be the commentator on the trial, along with other lawyers. And there were some days when there were trials and some days when there weren't and | would be available because I was living in New York at the time. BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. On Tuesday, the 16th, there is an entry that says Epstein, right? A. On Tuesday, the 16th? Q. Yes, sir. A. Where are we? Which calendar now? Q. Page 2. Page 2 of the composite, Tuesday, the 16th, Epstein. wont AM PP WY Dd NNNNN NH BB Pe Be Pp RP oP NP WN HF OW OY HAM BW N FO 324 yes. BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. Allright, sir. Let's go fo the next page. I've just focused on this period of time in January 2001 and on Friday, January 12 -- A. So we're going back to Friday, January 12. Yeah. Q. Your wife is in Cambridge, correct? A. No, I don't think so. My wife was living in New York with me at the time. | don’t see any record of her being in Cambridge. She was -- we were living together in New York at NYU downtown. I was a visiting scholar. Having been appointed by John Sexton of NYU to be a visiting scholar, we were there for the year. And my wife was with me during the year. Our daughter was in school in New York. She went to Little Red Schoolhouse in New York. And we had -- our life was in New York for a period of one year. Q. Andon Friday, January 12, you had another massage, right? A. [don't see anything on my record that -- Q. Massage, A.D.? A. We must be looking at the different pages. Q. Friday, January 12, page 4 - 37 (Pages 321 to 324) www.phippsreporting.com (888) 811-3408 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010819

oO oO nM PF WN NNNNNN PRP PRP PPP PPP nPwWNrF OW MN AH BWNHN RO wo Om nDM PP WN EF NNN NPR PPP PP PBR WNP CHUAN DHN BW NH O iS] w A. Who's - Q. -~- of Composite Exhibit 10. MR. SCOTT: Let me see the page you're talking about so he can -- MR. SCAROLA: I've given you the entire calendar. MR. SCOTT: Come on, Jack. MR. SCAROLA: I've given you the entire composite -- THE WITNESS: So you're talking about my wife's -- MR. SCAROLA: Fourth page -- fourth page of Exhibit 10. You have Exhibit 10, I've given a copy of that. MR. SCOTT: I understand it and he has it front of him and I'm trying to get him to the right page. Thank you. Please take it down. BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. Fourth page, Composite Exhibit 10. A. Yes. Q. Friday, January 12. A. Okay. That's very simple. We were both in Cambridge and I had a massage in Cambridge. How do I know that? Because it had basketball. And that's where J play and watch basketball was in oO adn wo PP WN FR NN NNN NPP EP PP RP PP Pe UB WN FP OO MN HU PWNHR OO 327 A. Uh-huh. Q. Okay. Or from 3:30 to 4:15, that would be a playing time for you in Cambridge; is that correct? A. You'd be asking me to speculate. I can't speculate based on my wife's calendar. It says utility bill, Reservoir address. That suggests Cambridge. Reservoir is our house in Cambridge. Q. So, it would appear that this is another massage that you got somewhere? A. But 1 would like to also say one thing. I don't -- I at least wonder were these records available to your clients at the time they made the false accusations against me or arc they aftcr-the-fact constructs designed to simply try to find excuses to justify their false allegations? It seems to me the latter is probably the case. Q. And you are going to have an opportunity through your counsel to ask those questions. A. And we will. Q. And my clients are anxious to be able to answer those questions. A. Not as anxious as I am to hear their answers. Q. Okay. 326 Cambridge. So probably I was in Cambridge if it says B ball 3:30, 4:15 and says Cambridge with Ella, so I'm sure | was in Cambridge. Q. Allright. So- A. But I'm -- I'm looking at my wife's calendar. I can't tell you and nor can you tell me where | was at that period of time. Q. So, the basketball entries are references to your watching basketball in Cambridge? A. No. They could be playing basketball. J played basketball in those days -- Q. Watching or playing basketball? MR. SCOTT: Let him finish his answer, please. A. either watched basketball or played basketball, yeah. 1 did not go to basketball games in New York, to my recollection, unless the Celtics were in New York and maybe we can check -- MR. SCOTT: You've got about five minutes, Counsel, BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. The Celtics didn't play from 4:15 to 5:00, did they? A. No, but I did. Q. You did? oD MAH HP WN EF 328 MR. SCOTT: Okay. Let's wrap it up. MR. SCAROLA: Not quite. MR. SCOTT: Yeah, it's 12:30. I'm ending this. That gives you three and a half hours. We take a lunch break and then we have three and a half. MR. SCAROLA: We don't need three and a half hours for lunch. MR. SCOTT: No, I didn't say that, I said we take an hour break and then we have three and a half hours with your client, just like... MR. SCAROLA: If -- if that's what you want to do -- MR. SCOTT: That's the fair thing to do because that's why we're dividing it equally and I suggested that -- MR. SCAROLA: | will state -- J will state for the record that Exhibits 2, 3 and 4 -- excuse me, Exhibits 9, 10, 11 and 12, composite exhibits, directly conflict with the witness's assertion -- MR. SCOTT: This is all a speech on your part. MR. SCAROLA: It is a speech. MR. SCOTT: Itis a speech and -- 38 (Pages 325 to 328) www.phippsreporting.com (888) 811-3408 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010820

oO owt nN MO bP WN NNNNNN FP BP RP BP BPP BP RP Be OP WHF OHM MOAN AU PWN RO 329 MR. SCAROLA: I'm giving you notice as to what you can do to do your homework. Okay? They directly conflict with the witness's assertion that the flight logs exonerate him. In fact -- MR. SCOTT: Wait a minute. MR. SCAROLA: -- the flight logs -- the flight logs corroborate Virginia Roberts’ assertions. MR. SCOTT: And I thank you very much for that explanation and we look forward to resuming this at the appropriate time and responding to that. THE WITNESS: And that is a false statement. MR. SCOTT: Thank you. VIDEOGRAPHER: Going off the record. The time is approximately 12:26 p.m. (The proceedings ADJOURNED at 12:26 p.m.) CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF BROWARD I, KIMBERLY FONTALVO, Registered Professional Reporter, do hereby certify that I was authorized to and did stenographically report the foregoing videotape deposition of ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ; pages through 145; that a review of the transcript was requested; and that the transcript is a true record of my stenographic notes. I] FURTHER CERTIFY that I am nota relative, employee, attorney, or counsel of any of the parties, nor am I a relative or employee of any of the parties' attorneys or counsel connected with the action, nor am I financially interested in the action. Dated this 16th day of October, 2015. KIMBERLY FONTALVO, RPR, FPR, CLR CERTIFICATE OF OATH STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF BROWARD I, the undersigned authority, certify that ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ personally appeared before me and was duly sworn on the 16th day of October, 2015. Signed this 16th day of Octaber, 2015. 2 hz “ft i e iy, hag eld s IMBERLY FONTALVO, RPR, FPR, CLR Notary Public, State of Florida My Commission No. EE 161994 Expires: 2/01/16 October 16, 2015 COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, P.A. Dadceland Centre II - Suite 1400 9150 South Dadeland Boulevard Miami, Florida 33156 BY: THOMAS EMERSON SCOTT, JR., ESQ. Re: Edwards v. Dershowitz Please take notice that on the 16th day of October, 2015, you gave your deposition in the above cause. At that time, you did not waive your signature, The above-addressed attomey 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 Forutn Place, Suite 500 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 { do hereby waive my signature. ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ 39 (Pages 329 to 332) www.phippsreporting.com (888) 811-3408 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010821

333 ERRATA SHEET DO NOT WRITE ON TRANSCRIPT - ENTER CHANGES HERE In Re: EDWARDS V. DERSHOWITZ ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ October 16, 2015 PAGE LINE CHANGE REASON Under penalties of perjury, | declare that I have read the foregoing document and that the facts stated in it are true. Date ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ 40 (Page 333) www. phippsreporting.com (888) 811-3408 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010822

Exhibit 3 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010823

on On fk WwW NH | wo 11 12 13 14 15 16 i7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 of 38 sheets o oN OP HOH FB WO Hw ee ee eo bb WO NM ww @ 18 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 IN THE eae COURT THE SEVENTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN_AND FOR SROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO. CACE 15-000072 BRADLEY J. EDWARDS and PAUL G. CASSELL, Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants, vs. ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ, Defendant /Counterclaim Plaintiff. VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF PAUL G. CASSELL TAKEN ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT VOLUME I. PAGES 1 to 151 Friday, October 16, 2015 1:33 p.m. - 4:31 p.m. by Southeast 6th Street 110 Tower - Suite 1850 Fort Laxderdale, Florida 33301 Theresa Tomaselli, RMR ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL On behaif of the Plaintiffs: SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART & SHIPLEY, P.A. BY: JOHN SCAROLA, ESQUIRE 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard West Palm Beach, Florida 33409 Tel: 561.686.6300 Fax: 561.383.9541 E-mail: [email protected] On behaif of Virginia Roberts: BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER, LLP BY: SIGRID STONE McCAWLEY, ESQUIRE 401 East Las Olas Boulevard Suite 1200 Fort Lauderdale, Fiorida 33301 Tel: 954.356.0011 Fax: 954.356.0022 E-mail: smccawley@ bsfilp.com On behalf of the Defendant: WILEY REIN LLP BY: RICHARD A. SIMPSON, ESQUIRE AND: NICOLE A. RICHARDSON, ESQUIRE 1776 K Street Northwest Washington, DC 20006 Tel: 202.719.7000 Fax: 202.719.7049 E-mail: [email protected] Also on behalf of the Defendant: COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, P.A. BY: THOMAS EMERSON SCOTT, 9150 South Dadeland Boulevard Dadeland Centre II ~- Suite 1400 Miami, Florida 33156 IR., ESQUIRE Tel: 305.350.5329 Fax: 305.373.2294 E-mail: thomas,[email protected] ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 oo Oo NN OO HM RB WY NH rr: ee 9 o oo NN OO Go FB WO HM BO 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page i to 4 of 151 APPEARANCES CONTINUED Also on behalf of the Defendant: SWEDER & ROSS, LLP BY: KENNETH A. SWEDER, ESQUIRE 131 Oliver Street Boston, Massachusetts Tel: 617.646.4466 Fax: 617.646.4470 E-mail: [email protected] 02110 On behalf of the Witness: UTAH ATTORNEY GENERAL’S OFFICE, P.A. BY: JONIJ. JONES, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, Litigation Division 160 East 300 South Heber Wells Building - 6th Floor Salt Lake City, Utah 84114 Tel: 801.366.0100 Fax: 801.366.0101 E-mail: jonijones@ utah.gov Telephonically on behalf of Jeffrey Epstein: DARREN K. INDYKE, PLLC BY: DARREN K. INDYKE, ESQUIRE 575 Lexington Avenue 4th Floor New York, New York 10022 Tel: 212.971.1314 Also Present: DON SAVOY, Videographer BRADLEY J. EXWARDS ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ CAROLYN COHEN ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 INDEX OF EXAMINATION WITNESS PAGE PAUL G. CASSELL DIRECT EXAMINATION 6 BY MR. SIMPSON INDEX TO EXHIBITS EXHIBIT DESCRIPTION PAGE Cassell 1.D. Exhibit No. 1 - Plaintiff's 21 Response to Motion for Limited Intervention by Alan M, Dershowitz Cassell 1.0. Exhibit No. 2 - Jane Doe 22 Number 3 and Jane Doe Number 4's Motion Pursuant to Rule 21 for Joinder in Action Cassell i.D. Exhibit No. 3 - one-page 106 document produced by the witness {Original Exhibits have been attached to the original transcript.) ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 10/20/2015 01:07:28 PM HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010824

61 ortoss 4 Q. I would like to know why you alleged “and oni28s 1 was your basis for this? otos7 2 other minors" given what you have said about your o1tess 2 A. Albright. So the initial basis for it onto: 3 knowledge of the factual basis, so to speak, for that 1300 3 was-- oriis 4 allegation. ovia00 | 4 MR. SCAROLA: First of all, let me object ovo = 5 A. Okay. There are going to be -- I'm going to ortaoe 5 because Professor Cassell is not here as an oxvit0s «= end up giving you nine reasons, each of which is oirs0s §=6 expert witness and hypotheticals are aaa 7 complicated, so I just want to -- if -- if -- I don't ones | 7 inappropriate. You're calling for speculation on ons «6=8 ~=want to be accused of -- of filibustering or anything. orion | 8 his part. I'm not going to instruct him not to onus 9 Ijust want you to know that you have asked a broad ovate 9 answer, but itis an improper question. aiiis 10 question that's going to require a broad and extended onts1a 10 MR. SIMPSON: I disagree, but you can answer oti20 11 answer. It -- it -- ons 11 the question. ornia 12 Q. Answer the question. orate 12 THE WITNESS: Right. So the -- the factual onit22 13 A. Okay. Then I'm going to refer to a -- I have ota 13 basis would ~~ we are setting aside ota 14 a-- well, actually, I don't. onaz1 14 attorney/client communications, right? ottnzs 15 Q. Let me ask you this: Before you refer to ori321 15 BY MR. SIMPSON: ortt30 16 something -- ov13:22 16 Q. I'masking: What would you tell the judge? oruao 17 A. Yeah. or13:26 17 A. Right. So that -- I -- I -- that's ann30 18 Q. -- please give me your best recollection of 011322 18 speculative to -- I don't think I can give a fair answer o:1134 19 what the basis was, the factual basis that you had in 011330 19 at this point because that would have involved going 011332 20 back to my client and -- and carving out what kinds ora? 20 = mind. If the court said to you -- let me put it this otz3e 21 of things we were going to present to Judge Marra in ovttao 21 way. If you went to court and Judge Marra said, o11339 22 light of the posture of the case at that point. ort1a3 22 Professor Cassell, what's your factual basis for this ori3saz 23 So it's a speculative question. I would erties 23 allegation? Tell me. What would you say? ontias 24 A. Right. ors 25 MS. McCAWLEY: Wait. Outside the context of ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 ors 24 have -~ let me just -- without going into any ortaaa 25 attorney/client privileged communications, I would have ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 62 64 ortso 1 anything that's been communicated to you. o:1351 1° provided an ample factual basis for those allegations. oss 2 MR. SCAROLA: Excuse me, You have asked two onvass 2 MR. SIMPSON: I move to strike as oninss = 3 different questions now, and I need to understand oss = 3 nonresponsive. ois = 4 which question you are asking. oases 4 BY MR. SIMPSON: ovnnss = 5 The question that you posed before just now anaes 5 Q. Let me ask it this way: We have talked ono 6 was: What was the reason for your including ote00 6 about -- somewhat about the basis for this allegation ones «7 those allegations in this pleading? aeo2 YF about other minors. Putting aside information as to ozo 8 Now you have asked: What is the factual oxsa09 8 ~which you're claiming privilege, tell me what you knew on20 9 basis? And that's going back to questions that 011413 9 as of December 30th, 2014, that formed the factual basis ovtz1e 10 we have already covered, and we have, I think, o114¢20 10 for your -- for that allegation about other minors. ota? 41 exhausted the ability to respond to that question ortaaa 11 MR. SCAROLA: And I'll instruct you not to o11220 12 outside of privileged information. ortaas 12 answer that question for the same reason, that o11223 13 Do you want to go back to the question about: orta27 13 when the same question was asked earlier, I ota 14 What was your reason for including those ortaze 14 instructed you not to answer. ors2e 15 allegations? ovtaa1 15 MR, SIMPSON: I'm -- I'm -- maybe we are not onze 16 MR. SIMPSON: I'll ask the question a ovteas 16 being clear, Jack. I'm asking him to put oin230 17 different way. ortaas 17 aside -- I mean, certainly, he -~ he filed a ora 18 MR. SCAROLA: Thank you. o11a37 18 pleading. You've asserted privilege as to o12a1 19 +=BY MR. SIMPSON: ortaao 19 certain aspects. I'm simply asking him, putting ortzas 20 Q. Mr. Cassell, I'm going to ask you: If you're ovsaaas 20 aside whatever you're claiming privilege for, oniza7 24 in court and Judge Marra said to you, counsel, what is ores 21 right, so I'm not -- I'm not asking you right now oviz4a2 22 the factual basis for your allegation that Professor outaa? 22 to tell me anything you're claiming as ortaaa 23 privileged. ovtaas 24 BY MR. SIMPSON: ontaso 25 Q. Tell me whatever is not privileged that ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 (954) 331-4400 10/20/2015 01:07:28 PM Page 61 to 64 of 151 16 of 38 sheets ot247 23 Dershowitz abused other minors, what would you say? And o112s1 24 if you wouldn't say something because it was privileged, orizs2 25 then don't include it. What would you tell the judge HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010825

01:14:53 04:14:55 04:44:58 01:14:59 01:15:00 04:15:04 01:15:04 On OM & GO hw «A 01:45:07 oso7 9 orts07 10 04:48:07 11 ot15:08 12 ots 13 04:15:42 14 ott 15 ons 16 onis20 17 04:18:22 18 04:15:24 19 orts2e 20 01:15:30 21 04:18:35 22 onisae 23 ons 24 avtsas 25 Ot: 5:54 01:18:53 04:18:55 04:15:58 01:18:59 01:16:02 04:16:05 01:46:07 moan ooh @ bh «a 01:16:09 ores 10 onere 11 otse17 12 orie19 13 orntezz2 14 ortezs 15 ort28 16 ot633 17 ovtess 18 ovtess 19 orte30 20 artes: 21 ortess 22 ontea? 23 ones? 24 arteso 25 17 of 38 sheets 65 supports that allegation. A. Okay. The privileged information, obviously, you're asking me not to reveal at this point. Q. I'm asking you -- I'm asking you to tell me the nonprivileged information. And I'm not agreeing with your privilege assertion -- A. Sure. Q._—-- but for purposes of this question -- A. For purposes of this question. QQ. -- I'm accepting it. A. All right. Q. Putting aside what you claim is privileged, I want to know everything that's the factual basis for including the allegation about other minors. A. Okay. Privileged information which I'm not disclosing in any way would have interacted with a vast body of other information. The vast body of other information would have started with an 89-page police report from the Palm Beach Police Department that showed for about a six-month period in 2005, there was sexual abuse of minor girls going on on a daily basis, in -- whenever Jeffrey Epstein was in his Paim Beach mansion. And on some cases, it was going on not once, not twice, but three times during the day. That -- let ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 66 me just be clear. I mean, I -- I referred to the 89-page police report. I have offered to put it into the record if -- if it would speed things up, but let's just talk about some of the things that are in that 89-page police report. This was a -- a very intensive investigation that the Palm Beach Police Department put together. They did, for example, what are called trash covers; that is when trash came out of the -- of the mansion of Epstein, the police would intercept the trash and then they would go through the trash and lock for incriminating information. And what they began to discover was memo pads -- and I say "memo pads," let's be clear, pad after pad after pad, or I guess I should say, sheet after sheet after sheet that had the name of a girl, and then there was a notation of something to the effect of a massage. And so the Palm Beach Police Department began tracking down, well, wait a minute, these -- these are girls giving massages and they don't seem to have any specialized training in massages; they don't seem to be masseuses in any sense of the term; what's going on here? And so the Palm Beach Police Department ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 01:16:52 04:16:54 04:16:57 01:16:59 04:17:02 04:17:03 01:17:06 04:47:09 Oon Ook Wh = ORAS Ott? 10 OATS 11 O1722 1 2 O4:17:25 1 3 04:47:28 14 O4:47:28 15 01:47:30 16 04:17:35 17 O447:36 18 04:47:38 19 O417:40 20 01:17:43 21 O1t748 22 O1:47:53 23 04:17:57 24 O4:47:59 25 04:18:04 04:48:03 04:18:06 01:18:07 04:18:10 04:18:42 04:18:14 01:18:48 moon Oak WO th a 04:18:21 orte27 10 ovteze 11 ovte32 12 otraas 13 ovtaze 14 orteas 15 ovisas 16 04:18:46 17 artaso 18 ortes3 19 otrase 20 ottess 21 oness 22 011902 23 o1907 24 oni912 25 Page 65 to 68 of 151 67 began, you know, I guess what we would call knock-and-talks, knocking on doors to try to get to some of these girls, and they would get to the girls, and many of them initially were -- were afraid to explain what had happened. But as they -~- as they continued talking to them, the girls began to explain that what was happening was, they were going over to Epstein's house under the guise of giving a massage, and when they got there, the massage was, in fact, sexual activity. And for many of the girls, I think, as I say around 23, 24, something along those lines, they were underage. They were under the age of consent in Florida. And so each and every one of those events was a crime being perpetrated -- and let's be clear, not just being perpetrated by Epstein, but by other people who were involved there at the mansion. And so what the -- the Palm Beach Police Department was putting together was that this mansion in Florida was the nest of sexual abuse of young girls here in Florida that involved, literally, in the -- in this period of time, more than a hundred events that they were able to document of sexual abuse. And when you put that together with the ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 68 pattern or practice that was being revealed there, there were hundreds of acts of sexual abuse going on in the mansion. But then what becomes -- and this is where I indicated that, you know, the answer would continue on, The -- the problem was that the evidence was starting to show that this was a much broader series of events. For example, there were flight logs showing that Mr. Epstein was then flying with underaged girls, and those flight logs, you know, as -- as the flight logs began to develop, for example, we have seen, I know in the last day or two here, one underage girl was Virginia Roberts who is on the flight, you know, with Epstein, and with Maxwell, and those sorts of things. So you start to look at the flight logs and you see what's going on is not just events that are occurring in Florida, but it's occurring ona multi-state basis, which now starts to make it a federal crime. For example, we are seeing evidence that -- let's just talk about Virginia Roberts since she's central to this case. We are seeing Virginia Roberts being flown from Florida to New York where she's in the clutches of Jeffrey Epstein who is sexually abusing her, you know, many times a week. And not just Jeffrey Epstein, but ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 10/20/2015 01:07:28 PM HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010826

64:19:15 01:49:18 O119:24 01:19:24 04:19:27 04:49:30 04:19:94 On ON & WH = 01:19:36 oieaa «9 orga: 10 ortoas 14 ortoss 12 orgs: 13 ortess 14 04:19:55 15 ososa 16 012002 17 or204 18 ot2005 19 or2007 20 or2008 21 orzo10 22 04:20:15 23 ov2017 24 or2019 25 01:20:22 04:20:26 04:20:28 04:20:31 01:20:34 01:20:39 04:20:42 OnN Oak WN = 01:20:45 04:20:47 9 04:20:50 10 04:20:54 11 01:20:56 12 01:20:58 13 04:21:04 14 04:21:04 15 04:21:07 1 6 On2t10 17 OF 2114 18 O27 19 04:21:19 20 0824-25 21 01:21:28 22 ON2tat 23 01:24:33 24 On24:35 25 10/20/2015 01:07:28 PM 69 other powerful persons. For example, Ghislaine Maxwell is there with him on all of these flights and apparently being involved in the abuse. Indeed -- and so you -~ you have -- you have that. You also start to see on the flight logs, what to my mind are some very sinister things, suggesting that the pattern is not just confined to sort of, you know, the girls that are there in Florida, but it -- it is extending more broadly. Like one of the -- to my mind, sinister and scary things on the flight logs is, we see, you know, Virginia Roberts, who we know has been sexually abused, and we see Jeffrey Epstein, and then we see on the flight logs one female. That's kind of an odd notation for a flight log because, you know, typically, I understand the flight logs, the purpose is, well, if something happens with the flight, or there's some question about who was on it, you want to know who -- who the person was who was on the flight. So, to my mind, when I started to see on these flight logs entries like one female, I viewed that as a potential device for obscuring the fact that there was interstate trafficking of underage girls for purposes of sexual activity. Serious federal offenses. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 70 But then that evidence extended, you know, more broadly than that. The evidence also started to show, again, if we talk just about flight logs, that the -- that underage girls such as Virginia Roberts were being flown internationally from, for example, Teterboro in New York to -- to locations, just to pick one, you know, for example, in London, where again sexual abuse was occurring. And so you started to put together this pattern of criminality that was started in this -- you know, I don't know what the right word is here. I don’t want to -- I don't want to -- you know, you've heard discussions of hyperbole and things like that, but we have got this nest of -- of -- and I won't say snakes, but we have this nest of criminals in Florida, but it -- it seems to be spreading to Epstein's mansion in New York; it seems to be spreading to Ghislaine Maxwell's flat in London, and -- and -- and it goes on. So those are the kinds of things that would have formed the -- the -- the basis, particularly when you -- when you start to add in this fact: What the Palm -- going back now te Florida with the Palm Beach Police Department. What the Palm Beach Police Department has -- had discovered was not a one-off kind of event, you know, on one particular day, one ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 64:24:37 04:21:40 04:24:42 04:21:46 O4:21:48 Ot:21:51 04:21:54 On Oa bh ON = ot2487 orzz0 9 or2z0a 10 orz0s 14 or2z08 12 orn 13 oz 14 orzeit 15 orz21a 16 012222 17 012224 18 or2228 19 o12232 20 or2232 24 orzas 22 or2299 23 orzs1 24 or2244 25 01:22:48 0122/51 04:22:53 04:22:54 04:22:57 04:23:00 01:23:00 On Oa bh wh = 04:23:02 04:23:05 9 o12307 10 or2a10 11 O21 12 ora 13 orzaia 14 onze 15 O24 16 16 or2321 17 or2323 18 01:23:26 19 or2326 20 ovesze 21 or23:31 22 012335 23 or2sze 24 or2340 25 Page 69 to 72 of 151 71 particular girl had been sexually abused. What the Palm Beach Police Department had discovered was brazen, notorious, repetitive activity sometimes occurring as often as three times ina particular day. And so that led me to believe that the sexual activity that was going on in Florida was such that someone who was a regular house guest there would have immediately come to the conclusion that, well, look, gee, there are these underage girls coming in here and they -- they seem to be -- you know, they don't seem to be here to be doing, you know, business activities; they ~- they might be here doing other kinds of activities. So those would be the kinds of things that would -- would have formed the factual basis. There are other things as well, but I'm sure you want to ask other questions in addition to that. So I'll stop there, but those -- that's -- I think gives you a small flavor of the kind of evidence that, you know, was form -~ undergirding the allegations that were being presented here. Q. ‘It sounds like you quite passionately believe that there was strong evidence that Mr. Epstein had engaged in sexual misconduct; is that right? A. I think "strong" understates it. Q. In the course of that long answer, you didn't ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 mention Professor Dershowitz's name once. A. I said flight logs. And let's talk about flight logs. Q. Let me back up. You didn’t answer his name -- mention his name once; is that -- is that your recollection as well? A. That's correct. We were talking about a factual basis, and I'll be glad -- I told you that there were other things if you want, factual basis for -- for Mr. Dershowitz. I'll be glad to add that in. Let me -- let's -- let me -- let me -- I would like to supplement my answer then if I could. Q. Do you want to look at a document? A. Yes. Q. Let me first -- have we exhausted your recollection without documents of all the evidence that you would refer to to support the allegation that Professor Dershowitz abused other minors? A. No. MR. SCAROLA: And let me say that you have a right to refer to whatever documents you choose to refer to, to be sure that you give a complete response to the question that has been asked, as long as you understand that whatever you refer to is going to be available to the other side, and ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 18 of 38 sheets HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010827

01:23:43 04:23:45 04:23:47 01:23:47 01:23:47 01:23:48 01:23:50 On OOH h @@ DN 04:23:51 @ 01:23:81 10 or.23:52 14 o12382 12 or23s¢ 13 ors 14 ovaas7 15 ovzase 16 orzo 17 ozs 18 o12403 19 or2404 20 o12os 24 or:24.07 22 ot2407 23 or207 24 or2408 25 04:23:51 04:24:14 04:24:14 09:24:15 04:24:19 04:24:27 01:24:32 04:24:33 On OA hm WD 2 01:24:36 @ 01:24:40 10 or2aas 14 or2aae 12 ormas 13 or2asa 14 o12ass 15 o12s02 16 orzs0s 17 or2si2 18 orvzsis 19 or2617 20 012823 24 012826 22 0125:23 23 or2532 24 or2s36 25 09:24:43 19 of 38 sheets 73 we would be happy to make it available to you. MR. SIMPSON: And -- and I'll give you an opportunity to look at that -- THE WITNESS: Sure -~ BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. -- but I'm entitled to ask first about your recollection. A. Okay. Q. Based on your recollection -- A. Right. Q, -- I want to know all the evidence -- A. Right. QQ. -- you were relying on here. A. to make a list here on my -- on my notepad of all the So what -- what I'm going to do is, I'm going things, and then I'm going to compare that with notes I have here. There may be a couple things that I don't cover. Q. As long as your counsel is okay with that. Yeah. > Q. You understand you'll have to give that to A. Yeah. I'll give you the notes -- Q. All right. A. -- and then I will compare with what I've got ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 74 there. So I mentioned the Palm Beach Police Department report. The next thing that I want to mention is the Jane Doe 102 complaint. In August of 2009, Bob Josefsberg -~ who is, from what I understood, a very well-regarded lawyer here in Florida; in fact, a lawyer that was selected by the United States Government to represent a number of the -- of the girls that had been sexually abused by Jeffrey Epstein. He was -- he was part of the procedure that was including the nonprosecution agreement. In August of 2009, he filed a complaint on behalf of Virginia Roberts. That complaint indicated that Virginia Roberts had been sexually abused in Florida, in New York, and in -- in other places, as I recall. The thing that -- that I particularly recall was that Mr. Josefsberg had said, Virginia Roberts was abused by -- and he gave some categories of people. He mentioned, I think, business people. He mentioned royalty, and he mentioned academicians. And so to tie into your question, I knew that Professor Dershowitz was an academician. And so what I was seeing now was, that according to a very, very respected attorney here in Florida, he had found Virginia Roberts to be credible, and had filed a lawsuit against ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 04:25:38 01:25:44 01:25:44 04:25:48 01:25:49 04:28:52 04:25:58 On Om Rh WD = 01:26:00 ie) 01°26:05 orze08 10 012613 14 ov2616 12 ore 13 012623 14 012626 15 012628 16 012631 17 or263s 18 ora 19 or26e4 20 or2643 24 or26s1 22 ov2653 23 012687 24 25 01:27:01 01:27:01 04:27:04 04:27:06 01:27:08 OVQ7A4 04:27:18 04:27:18 ON OA kh GSD 01:27:21 o 01:27:25 10 ox2733 14 orarze 12 orarae 13 or273a 14 orarae 15 or27as 16 ovarss 17 orarse 18 ovarse 19 or27se 20 or27ss 24 ovarses 22 012800 23 or2a0s 24 orze0s 25 04:27:36 Mr. Epstein saying that she had been trafficked, sexually trafficked, you know, not just abused by Mr. Epstein, but now being forcibly sent to, you know, other people to abuse. And in the categories of people that were sexually abusing her were academicians, and I knew that Mr. Dershowitz fell within that category of -- of being an academician. The -~ that complaint also indicated that there might be flight logs that would show that Virginia Roberts had been sexually abused in these various locations. And that started to indicate to me that there might be what the law refers to as a common scheme or plan. And that, just as Virginia Roberts was being trafficked to these powerful people in various places, there might well be other girts. And so I have mentioned a flight log, and let you -~ you wanted to talk about Mr. Dershowitz. On -- on December 30th, 2009, I was aware that there was a flight log showing Mr. Dershowitz flying with Tatiana, who as far as I can tell was not a business person, was not providing financial advice or something else. I understood that Mr. Epstein was a billionaire who was heavily involved in financial issues. I knew that Tatiana was on a plane with Mr, Dershowitz, and then there was also, if I recall ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 76 correctly, working from memory as -~ as you were wondering about, there was a notation that Mr, Dershowitz was on a plane with one female. And so I was -~ when I looked at that, I'm seeing Mr. Dershowitz on a -- on a flight with a woman who doesn't seem to be there for, frankly anything other than sexual purposes or something along those lines with Mr. Epstein, with Mr, Epstein, who is a sex trafficker, and with one female which seemed to me to be a potential entry for disguising international sex trafficking. So that was of concern. I then began to look at, well, I wonder, how would I find out if Mr. Dershowitz had been abusing other girls? Let's see. I knew that Virginia Roberts had been forced to -~ to -- to -- to do this sort of thing. MS. McCAWLEY: You're okay as long as you're -~ if you're revealing something that's in an affidavit -- THE WITNESS: That's right. MS. McCAWLEY: -- that she submitted, you're fine. THE WITNESS: Right. So -- so what... Let's see. What did I want, at this point -- ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 Page 73 to 76 of 151 10/20/2015 01:07:28 PM HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010828

7 79 o1:2805 1 BY MR. SIMPSON: ov2ea7 1 MS. McCAWLEY: Yeah. or2e09 2 Q. Do you want the question back? orzo | 2 MR. SCAROLA: -- who keeps jumping up and orzet0 | 3 A. No. I'm just trying to remember what I was | 012250 3 down and distracting everybody in the room? oz 4 thinking about with -- with regard to -- ot2a52 4 MS. McCAWLEY: And there was also profanity ores 5 MR. SCAROLA: Do you need the response read ovress «5 used earlier. I mean, we just have to settle orze17 6 back up to the point -- orzss 6 down on this side, and take a deep breath, and or2e1s «67 THE WITNESS: Yeah, if you would do that, orza5s 7 let him answer his questions. or2820 8 yeah. I just -- orzese 8 MR. SIMPSON: Look, I mean, the same thing ar2820 9 MR. SCAROLA: -- about privilege arose. arzes9 9 was happening on the other side. or2820 10 THE WITNESS: Yeah. Let's just see what that o1:30:00 10 MR. SCAROLA: No, sir. 01:28:20 11 one -- avso00 44 MS. McCAWLEY: There was no profanity on this or2e21 12 MR. SCAROLA: Just read the last couple of ar30.00 12 side of the table. 012822 13 sentences back, or the last two sentences. orz000 13 MR. SCAROLA: No, no, no. There was never orze31 14 THE WITNESS: Oh, I'm sorry. NowI remember | o+3003 14 anyone who jumped to their feet at any time orvzea2 15 exactly what I was thinking. orzo0s 15 during the course of the last two days. The only or2832 16 How would we go find out whether Mr. Epstein orso08 16 person who keeps jumping up is Alan Dershowitz. ovzeas 17 was lending women, or in this case, underage orao1a 17 Have him pass you a note quietly, if you would, 0128.39 18 girls, to Mr. Dershowitz for sexual purposes? ovz016 18 please. orzear 19 Well, the first thing I want to do was ask ~- you orao018 19 MR. SIMPSON: I will disagree with your orzeas 20 know, I'd -- I'd go ask Jeffrey Epstein. ovzo19 20 characterization, but let me say the 012847 24 And so what I discovered when I started to orso20 24 argumentation -- orze4s 22 look at the transcripts, there were a number of orso21 22 MR. SCAROLA: Excuse me. Are you -- are you 01:28:52 23 transcripts where Mr. Epstein was asked about ar022 23 making the representation -- or2ess 24 Alan Dershowitz. And rather than say, well, no, 013022 24 MR. SIMPSON: No, I'm not. ores? 25 he wasn't involved in any of these illegal or3023 25 MR. SCAROLA: -- that somebody on this side ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 78 ovzsco | 4 activities, Jeffrey Epstein took the Fifth as the o1302 1 of the room jumped up? or2003 2 phrase, you know, to be more precise. He orso25 | 2 MR. SIMPSON: No, no, no, I'm not. or2a0s |= 3 exercised his right against compelled or3028 «3 MR. SCAROLA: Okay. Thank you. or200 4 self-incrimination and refused to answer the arso2 4 MR. SIMPSON: I'm not. orzo | § question, which since these were civil cases, arvzoa «5 MR. SCAROLA: And I appreciate that. aren 6 indicated to me, since he was being represented onso27 6 MR, SIMPSON: And I -- onze «7 by very experienced legal counsel, that there was or3029 7 MR. SCAROLA: And you do acknowledge that orate 8 more than an insignificant risk of incriminating ors030 «8 Mr. Dershowitz has repeatedly been jumping up in oer 9 himself if he answered that. ar3033 9 the middle of testimony, correct? o12920 10 And so Jeffrey Epstein now had taken the or3o3s 10 MR. SIMPSON: That's -~ he just got up and orze23 11 Fifth. And one of the things that I was aware of ovso37 11 came over to me. That's the only time I'm aware ovza26 12 having been involved in, you know, civil orsose 12 of, because I'm -- I'm looking at the witness, 0120-28 13 litigation and criminal litigation in other or3041 13 but he did just do that, and I will pass notes. or2a30 14 cases, was that once somebody refuses to answer a orsoas 14 We won't get up. or2932 15 question like, you know: Do you know orsoas 15 MR. SCAROLA: Okay. Well, I will tell you -- or203s 16 Mr. Dershowitz? And they take the Fifth on that, orao4s 16 MR. SIMPSON: I'm not going to take time from or2e3e 17 that you're then entitled to draw what's called or3zoa7 17 this. or2040 18 an adverse inference. You can -- you can infer orzo? 18 MR. SCAROLA: I will -- I will, for the or2e42 19 that, well, if they answered that question, they arzo42 19 record, as an officer of the court, represent ot2944 20 would have -- ars0s1 20 that there have been multiple times during the ar2eaa 24 MR. SCAROLA: Excuse me. or30ss 24 course of Professor Cassell's deposition when or2044 22 MS. McCAWLEY: Yeah, I want to make an orsoss 22 Alan Dershowitz has jumped up in the middle of or2944 23 objection here -- orator 23 the testimony and excitedly whispered in your orzo 24 MR, SCAROLA: Pardon me. Could you please or3tor 24 ear. or2947 25 try to control your client -- orator 25 You may not have realized it because you were ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 (954) 331-4400 10/20/2015 01:07:28 PM Page 77 to 80 of 151 20 of 38 sheets HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010829

01:31:08 01:31:10 01:34:13 01:31:16 O1:31:18 04:34:18 09:39:78 04:37:20 01:34:22 04:34:24 01:34:25 01:34:29 04:31:30 04:34:34 04:31:34 04:34:35 04:34:37 04:31:41 04:31:44 04:37:42 01:34:43 04:31:44 01:31:46 01:34:46 01:31:48 04:31:46 07:31:46 01:32:26 04:32:27 01:32:27 07:32:31 01:32:31 01:32:34 01:32:39 01:32:40 01:32:43 01:32:46 01:32:48 04:32:50 04:32:55 07:32:57 04:33:01 07:33:04 01:33:07 On On hO NHN wo 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 On Oa hOdh = 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 07:33:09 25 21 of 38 sheets 81 fecusing on the witness, but everybody on this side of the room has been distracted by his unprofessional conduct. MR. SIMPSON: I'm not going to argue with you. AndI-- MR. SCAROLA: Thank you. MR. SIMPSON: -- I disagree with that characterization. There is another attorney sitting between us. We will pass notes. MR. SCAROLA: Thank you. MR. SIMPSON: And we -- and I believe, Ms. McCawley, were you instructing not to answer or what was happening? What did you ~~ what were you raising? MS. McCAWLEY: No. There was a lot of yelling going on here, so I was trying to make sure that everybody was quiet -- MR. SIMPSON: All right. MS. McCAWLEY: answer. MR. SIMPSON: All right. Let me back up. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. Professor Cassell, I think you were in the ~- so that the client could middle of an answer? A. Iwas. Yes, if I could conclude -- ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 82 MR. SIMPSON: All right. Could the court reporter read me the last two lines of your answer? THE WITNESS: Okay. (Thereupon, a portion of the record was read by the reporter.) BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. Okay. Can you pick up then? A. Sure. Tl pick up -- pick up the -- Q. Okay. A. So Iwas beginning to draw an adverse inference when Jeffrey Epstein, who is at the heart of the sexual abuse of, not only Virginia Roberts, but dozens and dozens and dozens of -- of girls literally scattered across the globe, takes the Fifth, refuses to answer the question, off the top of my head, I can't recall exactly, but something along lines of: Do you know Alan Dershowitz? And he says, I take the Fifth. That sort of, frankly, startled me, that -- that this international sex trafficker was taking the Fifth now when asked about Mr. Dershowitz. And so I was stymied in trying to get information from Mr. Epstein at that point. I think there were two depositions, if I recall correctly off the top of my head, that -- that I had an opportunity to ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 OV3314 04:33:13 04:33:14 04:33:47 07:33:20 04:33:24 04:33:26 On Oak WH = 04:33:28 ors331 9 013333 10 ovaa3e 14 ova3a40 12 013344 13 ov3347 14 01:33:50 15 ovass3 16 orasss 17 04:33:58 18 ors4or 19 0134-04 20 orvsaor 24 orsao7 22 onsen 23 or3a1s 24 onsets 25 01:34:24 01:34:25 09:34:27 04:34:30 04:34:33 01:34:35 01:34:38 On Oak WH oa 04:34:42 orssss 9 orssas 10 O134:54 11 or3asa 12 04:34:57 13 or3s00 14 01:35:00 15 or3502 16 01:35:05 17 or3s09 18 orss12 19 orss1s 20 013897 21 01:35:18 22 oras21 23 01:35:23 24 01:36:26 25 Page 81 to 84 of 151 83 review, in which he took the Fifth when asked questions about Dershowitz. So, at that point, in trying to figure out, you know, whether Mr. Dershowitz was involved in sexually abusing, not only Virginia Roberts, but in other girls, then you go down to the next level, next layer of the criminal conspiracy. Epstein is at the top, so you go to the next layer. These are, you know, basically the -- the women who, from what I could gather, were -- were older than the age that Epstein wanted to sexually abuse, I think these were 22 and 23-year-old girls, so they had, you know, essentially aged out of being his sexual abuse victims, but they continued to -- what they would do is collect girls for him under the age of 18, that I guess was in his target range. And so what -- so the next person I wanted to talk to, you know, and get information from was Sarah Kellen. Sarah Kellen is on a lot of these flight logs with, you know, these girls that -- or women and with Epstein and others, and so I wanted to talk to Sarah Kellen. But what I discovered there was that, when Sarah Kellen was asked about Alan Dershowitz, she took the Fifth, and there was -- she wasn't the only one. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 84 There was Miss Mucinska, who also took the Fifth when asked questions about Alan Dershowitz. And then there was Marcin -- Miss Marcinkova who also took the Fifth. So what we -- what I had at this point was Jeffrey Epstein's international sex trafficking organization. I had the next echelon, and both the top kingpin of the sex trafficking organization, and the next echelon had taken the Fifth, had refused to answer questions about Alan Dershowitz. And so, at -- at that point, I was drawing an adverse inference, not just from one person, but from four persons, and that adverse inference was being strengthened by the surrounding circumstances, some of which we have already talked about. One of the things that -- that really bolstered the adverse inference that I was drawing in this case was that I've mentioned those three girls, Kellen, Mucinska, and Marcinkova, They were all covered by a nonprosecution agreement. And the nonprosecution agreement was highly unusual. I -- I had been a federal prosecutor for about four years, I had been a federal judge for about five-and-a-half years, so I had seen a lot of -- of, you know, nonprosecution types of arrangements. And one of the things that was very unusual in this one is, it has ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 10/20/2015 01:07:28 PM HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010830

013522 1 what I'll refer to as the blank-check immunity 013533 2 provision. or3saa 3 There was a provision in the nonprosecution 013533 4 agreement that said, this agreement will prevent federal o3s4o 5 prosecution for international and interstate sex o13543 6 trafficking, not only of Jeffrey Epstein, and not only ossss 7 of the four women who were identified, but -- and this ossaa «8 = is. a direct quote: Any other potential co-conspirator, 013553 9 close quote. oss 10 And so that was unusual because what it -- o3ss7 11. whatit seemed to be doing was that somehow this a13658 12 agreement was quite out of the normal and had been o13600 13 designed to extend immunity to other people that might o136.03 14 have been associated with Epstein. orze0s 15 And I knew that that category included the o13600 16 people that were involved in negotiating this highly o13611 17 unusual provision included Mr. Dershowitz, who had been oe 18 heavily involved, not only in the drafting of the or3618 19 agreement, but had also been involved remarkably in 013622 20 attacking the credibility of these girls and saying o13e25 21 things like, you know, it was -- Epstein wasn't 013628 22 targeting minor girls, which just struck -- you know, I 013633 23 was -- 1 don't want to use a technical term, 013623 24 gob-smocked, that a defense attorney with an obligation or3e:37 25 ~=to tell the truth was making a factual representation ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 86 o3ea2 1 that Jeffrey Epstein was not targeting minor girls, when orse4a4 2 the Palm Beach Police Department had collected, you oe 3 know, 23 of them that had all given essentially ov3zeso 4 interlocking stories about how they had all gone over to oiz654 5 this house, you know, the mansion, to give a massage and ovzes7 6 when they had gotten there, they had been sexually ovsess «47 abused. orsess 8 So the kingpin wouldn't talk. The next o3701 9 echelon of the trafficking organization wouldn't talk. 013703 10 So the next step was to say, okay, let's see if we can or3706 11 find somebody, you know, lower level in there, you know, osros 12 a household employee or something like that; maybe they or3710 13 - will have some information about, you know, what this ov3712 14 criminal organization is doing. ors71a 15 Now, let's -- let's understand, you know, 013716 16 given the pervasiveness of the -- of the criminal ors719 17 «= oaactivity, I -- I wasn't convinced that they were going 013721 18 to be able to get in there and start saying exactly what 013724 19 was going on because they might well be exposing 013728 20 «= themselves to criminal -- you know, criminal or3720 24 culpability. ors730 22 But I -- I was able to read a sworn 01:37:32 23 deposition from Juan Alessi, and Juan Alessi -~ I 013737 24 think -- I don't know. Maybe just to speed things up 013738 25 today, I won't go through all the things that are -- ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 10/20/2015 01:07:28 PM 01:37:40 01:37:46 01:37:47 O1:37:51 01:37:55 01:37:56 01:37:58 01:38:00 01:38:03 04:38:09 01:38:10 04:38:12 04:38:15 04:38:17 04:38:19 01:38:20 04:38:22 04:38:26 01:38:30 an noah Wh = 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 01:38:30 20 04:36:34 21 01:38:37 22 01:38:40 23 01:38:45 24 01:38:48 25 01:38:53 01:38:56 01:38:59 01:38:59 04:39:02 01:39:05 01:39:09 01:39:14 01:38:16 01:39:19 01:39:22 04:39:26 01:39:30 01:39:34 01:35:38 01:39:40 01:39:42 01:39:45 01:39:48 01:39:50 01:38:52 04:39:54 01:39:57 01:39:58 01:40:00 an A Ah WD = oO 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 87 that are said there, but Alessi puts Mr. Dershowitz at the nest of this international sex trafficking organization. Let's see. I think he said four or five times a year, two or three -- you know, two or three days when he goes there, And let's be clear, I know Mr. Dershowitz had said at some points like, I'm an attorney, and that's my client and so forth. And Alessi said, no, but this was notin a -- in a lawyer/client capacity; this is in a friend capacity. And so now we have Alessi putting him there at the same time when young girls were there. And one of the -- the -- the things that I picked up, so is Alessi -- you know, is he able te figure out who these girls are? A photograph of Virginia Roberts is shown to Juan Alessi in the deposition, and he I.D.s the photograph as, you know, V.R., so he -- he had, you know, put two and two together. So now I've got V.R. coming to the house at a time when Mr, Dershowitz is also in the house, and apparently spending, you know, two to three nights there and doing this four or five times a year. Now, Alessi wasn't the only one. There was Alfredo Rodriguez who was there in about 2004 to 2005, ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 88 after the time period of Virginia Roberts, but it's part of the common scheme or plan that we've been discussing here. And so in 2005, Alfredo Rodriguez says, yeah, again, Mr. Dershowitz is there at a time when these massages are going on. When you start to look at Alessi and Rodriguez's statements in context where they're -- they're saying he's there at the same time the massages are occurring, and with the West Palm Beach Police Department reports showing that massages are of a sexual nature, again, it started to put two and two together. One of the things that was particularly important about Rodriguez's situation was that Rodriguez had an access to what's been called the little black book, or I think he referred to it as the holy grail. This was Jeffrey Epstein's, you know, telephone book where he had telephone numbers in it. And so Rodriguez had that and, you know, I guess thought that this would be worth a lot of money because it would -- you know, it would identify all of the people that have been sexually abused by -- by Jeffrey Epstein. And so he tried to sellit. The FBI busted him for that. And when the FBI busted him, now he's got this book. And so the book went to Alessi, and ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 Page 85 to 88 of 151 22 of 38 sheets HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010831

89 oraoos 1 according to a -- to a later FBI report, Alessi or407 2 identified information that was pertinent to the FBI's ot4oo7 3 investigation. orton 4 And so when I look at the little black book onora 5 that I have seen copies of, there are a handful of names ovo? 6 in that black book that have been circled, apparently by oraoz22 7 Mr. Rodriguez, and one of the names that's -- that has o4023 8 been circled is Alan Dershowitz. And so that, to me, oraox0 9 was suggesting that Mr. Rodriguez had identified, you oo3s 10 know, Alan Dershowitz as somebody who had information ot4o3a 11 about this -- this international sex trafficking ring, oraoao 12 But just as a side note, but an important orsoaz 13 note, when the -- the thing that was circled on the Alan oraoes 14 Dershowitz page was not a single phone number ov4oz9 15 indicating, you know, somebody had bumped -- you know, ovaost 16 Epstein had bumped into at one point. I believe there ovoss 17 were 10 or 11 phone numbers that were associated with o:4087 18 Mr. Dershowitz that had all been circled and an e-mail o4i00 19 address as well. orato2 20 So that started to corroborate my sense that ota0s 21 Mr, Dershowitz was, indeed, a very close friend of ovatto 22 Jeffrey Epstein. Now, I had then continued to do -- ovata 23 there's been reference today to, you know, using Google oraine 24 todo research and so forth. So I Googled Jeffrey o4i:20 25 Epstein and one of the things that pops up rather ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 01:42:32 01:42:32 04:42:38 01:42:39 01:42:43 01:42:44 04:42:47 04:42:49 01:42:50 01:42:54 04:42:58 01:43:01 01:43:04 01:43:04 01:43:07 04:43:13 01:43:14 01:43:16 01:43:20 04:43:23 04:43:27 01:43:30 04:43:33 01:43:36 01:43:39 90 014122 1 rapidly is an article in Vanity Fair. onatas «6 2 And what you see in that article is, you or4iz28 3 know, discussion about Mr. Epstein, but when you're oratss | 4 trying to do a profile of someone, you try to figure out oraiza «5 ~=who that person's closest friends are, ovatas 6 And so the Vanity Fair author had gone to oraiaa. «67)~@)— Alan Dershowitz, you know, our -- Mr. Dershowitz here, oratcaa 8 and had asked him, hey, what do you know about Jeffrey ois 9 Epstein? oraias 10 And, again, off the top of my head, you want o14ta7 11 to know what I can remember right now. What I can ovataa 12 remember right now is that in the Vanity Fair article, orats3 13 the -- in the Vanity Fair article, Mr. Dershowitz said, oraiso 14 ‘I've written 20-some odd books; there's only one person 014203 15 outside my immediate family with whom I share drafts, ovaz08 16 and that's Jeffrey Epstein. orazos 17 So I took that as indicating a -- a very oazt0 18 close personal association that -- you know, among the o14213 19 people that -- that obviously he's sharing this -- these oraz1s 20 kinds of things that he wants evaluated before he shares ot4218 21 them with the broader world, there's his immediate 014221 22 family and then there's -- there's Jeffrey Epstein. orar2s 23 There was also another similar quote in the o14z24 24 article that indicated that -- that Mr. Dershowitz said o14229 25 that he wasn't interested in Epstein just because he had ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 23 of 38 sheets 04:43:41 01:43:43 04:43:45 01:43:48 04:43:50 04:43:52 01:43:54 01:63:56 01:44:02 01:44:04 01:44:07 01:44:08 01:44:11 01:44:15 01:44:20 01:44:23 01:44:25 04:44:27 01:44:34 04:44:35 01:44:39 04:44:45 04:44:46 01:44:49 01:44:52 ON Pah Wh = <a) 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 On Ooah Wh = 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 89 to 92 of 151 91 a lot of money. I mean, Epstein was identified as a billionaire in this article, billionaire with -- with a B, so the record is clear. But he said, look, if Epstein lost all his money -~ I'm paraphrasing here -- I would be, you know, happy to walk down, you know, the Coney Island Boardwalk with him and discuss things with him, as -- you know, even if he didn't have any money. So now I'm seeing Dershowitz is a very close personal friend of Jeffrey Epstein. And then I started to look at flight logs. There were -- there were some very interesting things that I noticed on the flight logs. One of the things I noticed was when I began to, you know, get into this, that, you know, I was wondering, well, what -- well, how do these flight logs come into the possession of, you know, law enforcement agencies? And the answer turned out to be that they had been provided by Epstein’s defense attorney and -~- and, you know, coincidentally, I suppose, or in my mind, suspiciously, they were not provided by just any defense attorney on this rather large defense team. They were provided by one attorney according to Detective Recarey. Detective Recarey testified under oath that the flight logs were provided to him by Alan Dershowitz. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 92 So one of the things that was -- was interesting is, Dershowitz has had access to these flight logs, and now I'm beginning to wonder, well, has there been an opportunity to sanitize those flight logs or remove any incriminating information? And -- and one of the things that was interesting about the flight logs that were produced -- I believe just so the record is clear, that was Exhibit 1 that -- if we could -- if I could refer -- I need to refresh my recollection as to -- well, I don't -~ you may not want me to look at documents, It was either Exhibit 1 or 2 this morning during Dershowitz's deposition which was covering a time period of January to, I believe, September 2005. These were flight logs that were produced by Mr. Dershowitz to the Palm Beach Police Department. And you wonder why did they stop in September -- you know, why stop in September 2005? What's the significance of that? Well, later on, additional flight logs were obtained, and sure enough, who shows up on an October 2005 flight log with Jeffrey Epstein? Mr. Dershowitz. So that led to a suspicion that Mr. Dershowitz had provided to the Palm Beach Police Department flight logs that, the time period of which ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 10/20/2015 01:07:28 PM HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010832

95 93 ovaass 1 for the production had been carefully crafted to keep ores 1 THE WITNESS: Right. No, I mean, I want to osas? 2 him out of it; in other words, te not produce the orsese 2 make -- I want to make clear that there was a lot orasso 3 October 2005 version. orse37 3 of information that I was relying on in filing o1:4503 4 The other thing I -- I began to discover as I orvasao | 4 this pleading, and -- and, of course, the later o4505 5 started going through some flight logs, Dave Rogers, who | ot42 § pleading. So we are on the subject of flight oasce 6 is one of I think about three pilots that -- that orgs = 6 logs. o14s10 «7 Epstein regularly relied on to fly his -- you know, he oraese 7 Flight logs showed that the flight logs o4st3 8 had very fancy -- to use the technical term ~~ jets. ores «8 Mr. Dershowitz had produced to Detective Recarey o:4s18 9 There were about -- there were about three pilots there. araeag 9 were incomplete and inaccurate. And so that led oras:20 10 One of them had some flight logs and that -- orass2 10 to concern on my part that Mr. Dershowitz had had o4s24 14 «that was Pilot Dave Rogers, if I'm recalling his name ores 11 an opportunity to sanitize the flight logs, 01452 12 correctly. And so later on in the litigation, the sex arses? 12 had -- had -- had provided incomplete production, o4530 13 abuse litigation against Epstein, flight logs were ovaror 13 you know, obviously, very important production eas 14 obtained from Dave Rogers, and it was possible to -- to oraro2 14 that the Palm Beach Police Department was looking 014537 15 compare -- I'm sorry. I don't mean to -- I want to make = | o1a70s 15 at. ovas4o 16 sure I get -- you know, the question is: How much can I oraros 16 Then we got some additional flight logs from o14542 17 remember and I'm trying to make sure I get -- get it all orzo 17 Dave Rogers. And what those flight logs orasee 18 in. oraz 18 showed -- first off, let's talk again about or4sas 19 And so the flight logs were produced from orarta 19 the -- the production of those flight logs. orasaa 20 Dave Rogers. And so Dave Rogers produced some flight oraz? 20 My recollection is that Dave Rogers's flight 014551 21 logs, and some of the flights that he produced logs for or4a7.21 21 logs were provided by Bruce Reinhart who was a oss 22 coincided with the logs that Mr. Dershowitz had provided | 01472 22 former Assistant U.S. Attorney who had been a145s9 23 to the Palm Beach Police Department, and there were orarze 23 inside the Southern District of Florida Office at o4s01 24 inconsistencies, And so that, again, aroused my orar20 24 a time when the Epstein case was the subject of oveos 25 suspicion that maybe Mr. Dershowitz when he had -- oraraz2 25 regular discussion in that office. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 94 96 oraeos 4 MR. SCOTT: I just got a call from a lawyer oraras 1 And then he had gone to work for some kind of orasog 2 on the screen. His -- his phone is not working, ora7as | 2 a -- a law firm or private operation that was oreo «3 Epstein's lawyer, Darren Indyke. orarag 3 located adjacent to Mr. Epstein's business. And oreo | 4 MR. SIMPSON: Why don't -- oraraa 4 so, now, Reinhart, who appeared to be being paid overs = 5 MR. SCAROLA: Do you want to take a break for orvazas | 8 by Mr. Epstein, and certainly was adjacent to onaerz 6 a second? oraras § & Mr. Epstein's business office, was producing ores «7 MR. SIMPSON: Well, why don't -- well, why avast 7 these flight logs. ose? 8 don't we Jet him finish his answer? orarse 8 So that, again, aroused suspicion that the oreta | 9 MR. SCAROLA: Let him finish the answer. ovarsa 9 flight logs that were being produced would have 014620 10 MR. SCOTT: Yeah, let's do that. You're o1a7s7 10 been sanitized or inaccurate. oras:20 14 right. orarsa 11 But even -- I mean, you know, I think the 0146.21 12 MR. SCAROLA: Although it may take a while. ovaso0 12 problem with -- you know, you can't sanitize ovse2 13 THE WITNESS: It -- it's, I mean, the orasioz 13 everything. That would be too suspicious. And oven, 14 question -- or:as04 14 so what -- what was -- was -- what was evident on oras21 15 MR. SCAROLA: Yeah. But let's -- oraaor 15 these flight logs was, for example, approximately ore2s 16 MR. SCOTT: I don't care. oraats 16 ten flights by Mr. Dershowitz with Tatiana has -- 01:05:25 17 MR. SCAROLA: Okay. Let's -- let's go ahead ovata 17 has been discussed; with Maxwell; with Jeffrey oe27 18 and finish. orasz1 18 Epstein. One of them had one female, which, ora627 19 MR. SCOTT: Let's go ahead and finish the oraa2s 19 again, in the context that I was looking at, orse-20 20 answer. We heard this much. or4a27 20 seemed to be a potential code word for aras2e 21 MR. SCAROLA: Good. Thank you. or4e28 21 underage -- underage girl. arasze 22 THE WITNESS: Okay. So there -- o1aa32 22 And so those flight logs showed, you know, ores 23 MR. SCOTT: I don't want to break him ona 01:48:35 23 again, close association and travel with -- o14632 24 roll. or4eaa 24 with -- with -- with Mr. Dershowitz, and oras33 25 MR, SCAROLA: Thanks. orasar 25 Mr. Epstein. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 (954) 331-4400 10/20/2015 01:07:28 PM Page 93 to 96 of 151 24 of 38 sheets HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010833

01:48:51 04:48:53 04:48:56 04:48:59 04:49:02 01:49:07 04:49:11 04:48:13 04:49:15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 orest? 10 oraane 14 orag20 12 oraa21 13 orao21 14 ovas22 15 oras22 16 oras26 17 oraoze 18 oras26 19 orao2s 20 orssza 21 orsex0 22 orao30 23 arse 24 ovaon2 25 01:49:32 01:48:32 01:49:33 01:49:37 01:48:37 01:49:38 04:49:38 01:49:39 01:49:40 OoOonrnt nah Wh = oraoar 10 oragas 11 orasas 12 ovagaa 13 orasso 14 oraese 15 oraass 16 oraase 17 o1s001 18 orsoos 19 orso0a 20 orso0s 24 or50.07 22 orsoto 23 orsot2 24 onsets 25 25 of 38 sheets 97 Another thing that I had, and I will not reveal any privileged communications here or any confidential information, but on December 30th, I was aware that one of the preeminent lawyers in the United States, David Boies, had agreed to represent Virginia Roberts. And given the vast amount of business that -- that, you know, tries to get in the door -- MR. SIMPSON: Could I interrupt? I mean, I think we are going towards a waiver here. MS. McCAWLEY: Yeah. No, no, no, I do not -- MR. SIMPSON: We can't have testimony about -- MS. McCAWLEY: Yeah. MR. SIMPSON: -- this is one of the most respected people in the country, or lawyers in the country, and then you won't answer the questions -- THE WITNESS: Okay. MR. SIMPSON: -- you said not to answer. MS. McCAWLEY: Oh. Well, describing David Boies in general -- MR. SIMPSON: I agree with the description. MS. McCAWLEY: -- doesn't constitute a waiver. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 98 MR. SIMPSON: He's a distinguished lawyer. MR, SCAROLA: And I don't think we are getting beyond anything that is a matter of public record. MR. SIMPSON: I just -- I -- MS. McCAWLEY: But I appreciate you -- MR, SIMPSON: Be aware of waiver. MS, McCAWLEY: -- letting me know that. THE WITNESS: Allright. I will be -- I will not waive anything, and if I start to do that, I would certainly request the opportunity to -- to retract what I'm doing, but I was aware -- since the issue is, well, what's in the public record, I was aware that, you know, probably the most significant United States Supreme Court case argued in the last 20 years was Bush versus Gore, which was a case that essentially determined who was going to be President of the most powerful country in the world. There were two attorneys who argued that case in front of the United States Supreme Court, and arguing for the Democratic Presidential Candidate, Al Gore, was David Boies. He had put his credibility on the line in arguing the Bush versus Gore case, and without ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 04:50:49 01:80:22 04:50:24 04:50:27 04:50:30 01:50:34 04:50:37 01:50:41 OOnr Dan kh WOH 01:50:46 04:50:50 10 04:50:56 11 01:51:01 12 01:51:03 13 04:51:09 14 OFSh14 15 04:51:19 16 On S424 17 04:51:30 18 OLSEST 19 04:51:33 20 orsia 21 04:54:36 22 01:51:96 23 04:51:40 24 04:54:42 25 04:54:45 04:54:48 04:54:48 On:5151 O4S4:54 OSTS7 0:52.00 04,52:03 Cont oak WOH = 04:52,05 04:52:07 10 01:52:09 11 04:52:11 12 04:52:13 13 04:52:17 14 orsz19 15 onsza1 16 ors22s 17 04:52:29 18 01:52:33 19 04:52:35 20 04:52:36 21 01:52:39 22 01:52:42 23 04:52:45 24 O4S2:54 25 99 going into any confidential communications or trying to waive in any way, I knew that David Boies had agreed to represent Virginia Roberts, which gave me additional confidence in the fact that I was also representing this young woman in her effort to bring sex traffickers to justice, and those who had sexually abused her to justice. And so those are things that come to mind immediately as -- let me just take a second and see if there were other things regarding Dershowitz that -- that come immediately -- immediately to mind. Oh, one of the things was in the Jane Doe 102 complaint, which alleged academicians that had -- that had abused -- sexually abused Jane Doe 3, there -- there were -- so that raises a question, obviously, of who were the academicians that Bob Josefsberg had identified? I can't recall, actually. Let me -- the record should be clear, I can't recall immediately whether it was singular or plural. It may have been plural, but if it's singular, I don't want to suggest that there were other academicians, but at least one academician had sexually abused Jane Doe 3, according to the ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 400 complaint that had been filed by Bob Josefsberg. There were two things that were of interest to that: One was that Mr. Epstein, the man that I wasn't able to get information from because he was invoking the Fifth, had refused or declined to file an answer to that complaint. Rather than deny the allegations, he had, ultimately, it's my understanding -- I don’t have inside information and I'm not trying to waive any information, but my understanding is that rather than answer the complaint, he settled the case through the payment of some kind of compensation that Jane Doe 102 found desirable for dropping her claim. The other thing that I found interesting is that Josefsberg's partner, I believe it is, Miss Ezell, had been to some of the depositions of, for example, I believe Juan Alessi and Alfredo Rodriguez. And I believe at least one of those, and perhaps both of those. And she had asked questions about Alan Dershowitz in those depositions, but had not asked questions about other academics in those depositions. So that led me to conclude that Bob Josefsberg and his outstanding law firm had ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 Page 97 to 100 of 151 10/20/2015 01:07:28 PM HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010834

01:52:54 01:52:54 01:52:56 01:52:58 01:53:00 01:53:02 01:53:05 ON Oa bb WN — 01:53:07 ‘o 01:53:09 01:53:11 1 0 04:53:13 1 1 orsate 12 01:83:19 1 3 04:53:21 14 01:53:22 1 5 01:53:26 1 6 01:53:34 1 7 ors3.c2 18 01:53:33 1 9 01:53:36 20 o2z0743 24 020743 22 02:08:03 23 02:08:06 24 02:08:08 25 02:08:12 02:08:12 02:08:14 02:08:16 02:08:18 02:08:23 02:08:27 ON Oa hb ON = 02:08:28 02:08:28 9 02:08:34 10 02:08:37 11 o20s40 12 o2z08a4 13 o2osae 14 ozess: 15 oz08ss 16 ozoess 17 ozos01 18 ozoa03 19 ozos0e 20 o209:09 21 020912 22 o200:14 23 ozoeis 24 ozos21 25 10/20/2015 01:07:28 PM 101 identified Alan Dershowitz as someone who had 020923 1 information relevant -- and let's be clear, that o20825 2 this is not a lawsuit about some contract dispute 020928 3 or something -- that he was someone who had 20323 4 information relevant to the sexual abuse of o20c30 5 underage girls and, indeed, they were asking o20832 § questions about what information -- what o20934 7 information he might have. o2038 8 Another -- I know, I remember now, there's a ozoo28 9 whole other line of things that -- that I had in ozoaar 10 mind at the time, and I think since you want to o2zos43 11 test my memory -- I'm not -- let me be clear. orooas 12 I'm not claiming I have a superb memory. I have ozosaa 13 an average memory, but this is a subject that's 020052 14 very important to me, and so I've worked, you ozossa 15 know, very hard to get all the information. ozoes7 16 1 would like to take a break. ozoess 17 MR, SCAROLA: Sure. Take a break. ozi001 18 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are going off the video | oz100 19 record, 3:27 p.m. o21007 20 (Thereupon, a recess was taken.) o210:11 21 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are back onthe video | oz1014 22 record, 3:41 p.m. oztors 23 THE WITNESS: I want to continue my answer. ozto21 24 I'm sorry. I got emotional there for a moment. oz1023 25 ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 102 I want to do a good job for Virginia Roberts o210.27 1 on -- on representing all the -- the evidence o2t028 2 that is available to support her. ozt031 8 The next thing that I was thinking of was, oz1o3s | 4 all right, then the question is: Well, what does ozto38 5 Mr. Dershowitz have to say about all this? So I ozt01 « & started to look at the information on that as o2toas | 7 well. oie | 8 In 2009, there had been a deposition request oz1048 | 9 sent to Mr. Dershowitz, and I -- I saw a document e2z1050 10 showing that that had actually been served on -- oztoss 11 on him, and, you know, to the extent that what I o2zto 42 saw was a -- I think a receipt from the process o2t101 13 server, or something along those lines, so I saw o2z1108 14 attempt to contact him in -- in 2009. ozii07 15 And then I saw an additional attempt to oz 16 contact him in 2011. Mr. Scarola had sent him a oz11ts 17 note and there was, you know, some back and oz 18 forth. The -- the one note that -- that jumped ori 19 out to me was one in which Mr. Scarola had o2tr21 20 written to Mr. Dershowitz, I think the phrase ozi121 24 was: Multiple witnesses have placed you in the ozt123 22 presence of Jeffrey Epstein and underage girls; I ori126 23 would like to depose you about those subjects. o2ti2s 24 And the answer that came back was not, well, 021131 25 ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 103 let me clear all of that misunderstanding up. You know, that's -- frankly, if I had gotten something like that, that's what I would have said. The answer that came back was -- from Mr. Dershowitz was something along the lines of, if I remember correctly, well, tell me what you -- you -- tell me what you want to know and I'll decide whether to cooperate, was I think the phrase that was used. And -- and so there was an attempt, you know, a 2009 attempt, a 2011 attempt to get information from Mr. Dershowitz. Then there was another subpoena without deposition for -- for documents. You know, we have heard a lot about records in this case that could prove innocence. There was a records request to Mr. Dershowitz in 2013. And, again, my understanding was that there was no -- you know, no documents were provided on that. And so those -- I had that information. Another bit of information that I had was that in 2011, I believe in early April -- this is not attorney/client privileged information from Virginia Roberts. This is a telephone call that she placed from Australia where she had been ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 104 essentially forced into hiding by Jeffrey Epstein. She managed to escape and was hiding out in -- in Australia, and that she would -- that somehow, you know, Mr. Scarola and Mr. Edwards were able to reach her and there was a telephone call that was made. And in that telephone call she identified Alan Dershowitz as someone who would have relevant information about Jeffrey Epstein and the sexual abuse of underage girls. And so I had that information as well. So that, as I understand, the question was: What could I recall off the top of my head with regard to the factual basis for information connecting Mr. Dershowitz with the sexual abuse of minor girls, plural, and that, sitting here at this moment, is the best that I can recall for the information along those lines. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. Was that answer -- MR. SCAROLA: Excuse me. Before -~ before you go on to another subject, Professor Cassell is entitled to refresh his recollection to give you a complete response. So why don't you go ahead and do that now. Make sure you've covered ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 Page 101 to 104 of 151 26 of 38 sheets HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010835

02:41:34 02:14:34 02:11:36 02:11:38 02:11:39 02:11:40 02:11:40 ON Oa kh WH = 02:11:44 02:11:43 9 02:11:44 1 0 02:11:44 1 1 02:11:46 1 2 02:11:46 1 3 02:11:48 1 4 oztiaa 15 02:44:54 4 6 02:14:54 1 7 02:41:54 1 8 02:41:55 1 9 02:41:56 20 02:11:59 21 02:12:04 22 021201 23 02:12:02 24 02:12:02 25 02:42:04 02:12:06 02:12:07 02:12:10 02:42:13 02:12:13 02:12:15 ONO ah WOH = 02:42:15 oxrate 9 oatare 10 021222 11 oz1224 12 oz1226 13 on1z27 14 ozt230 15 02:12:30 16 02:12:30 17 02:12:30 18 02:12:33 49 021233 20 oziz3s 21 02:12:39 22 ori 23 ozteae 24 coxa 25 27 of 38 sheets 105 everything. MR. SIMPSON: I'm -- I think I get to ask the questions, but I was going to ask the same question. MR. SCAROLA: Wonderful. We are on the same page. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. Mr. Cassell, you -- you mentioned that you had something that you had prepared -- A. Yes. Q. -- that would summarize -- A. Right. QQ. -- your knowledge. A. Right. Q. And now that you have exhausted your recollection, could you produce that and let's just mark it -- A. Yeah, sure. QQ. -- as an exhibit? MR. SIMPSON: We are up to Exhibit 3, 1 believe. Cassell 3. THE WITNESS: Right. Now, there -- there are two parts to this -- MR. SIMPSON: Can we mark it first and then -- ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 106 THE WITNESS: Yeah. I just want the record to be clear, that I'm only looking -- there’s -- there's a pre-December 30th section and a post-December 30th section, so the top part is the -- is what I was working off of. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. Okay. A. Now, underneath this is -- you know, if you have questions about what happened after December 30th. Q. So you're -- you're prepared to produce the entire document, but you're clarifying? I don't -- I don't want to ask you -- if you're going to use it in your testimony, then we will mark the whole thing. MR. SCAROLA: Mark the whole thing. You can use it. MR. SIMPSON: Mark the whole thing and I'll ask you about it. THE WITNESS: That would be great. Absolutely. MR. SIMPSON: All right. I'm going to ask the court reporter to mark as Cassell Exhibit 3, a one-page document that the witness has just handed to me. It's mostly typed. It has some handwriting on it. (Cassell I.D. Exhibit No. 3 - one-page ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 02:12:45 02:12:45 02:13:10 02:13:11 02:13:13 02:13:13 02:13:13 OonN Oa kh WD fh = 02:13:16 02:13:18 9 02:43:21 10 021327 11 021327 12 o21327 13 oz13a28 14 021330 15 oz13:34 16 oztaae 17 021337 18 02:13:39 19 ozis42 20 021342 21 021344 22 02:13:46 23 oz1a4a 24 ontas2 25 02:13:53 02:13:56 02:13:57 02:13:58 02:14:02 02:14:05 02:14:07 SON Oa Rh WOH = 02:14:14 @ 02:14:17 o2t417 10 021420 11 021428 12 oz1428 13 ozta20 14 oztaas 15 oztaag 16 021452 17 o2z14s3 18 oztass 19 0215.00 20 02:15:06 21 ozt508 22 ors 23 o21515 24 oasis 25 Page 105 to 108 of 151 document produced by the witness was marked for identification.) THE WITNESS: All right. So let me -- if 1 could lock at this to see if it -- the top portion of it to see if it refreshes my recollection about -- BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. Could I just see it for one second? A. Sure. Absolutely. Q. Allright. Yeah. Let me just clarify one point before you do that. A. Yes, sir. Q. In your answer, were you referring to the evidence you could recall or the information you could recall that supported your allegations as to both Virginia Roberts and other minors, or were you treating those separately? A. No, I was not treating those separately. I was -- for me, there's a common -- what -- what the law refers to as a common scheme or plan in a -- Q. Okay. A. -- acriminal conspiracy for international trafficking that involved not just a single girl, but multiple girls. So the answer was -- was with respect to -- to multiple girls. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 Q. Okay. Sol may have some questions to distinguish further between those two -- A. Yes. Q. — -- but is it fair to say that -~ and I realize you're going to refresh your recollection, but that you had exhausted your recollection of the basis for the allegation in this Exhibit 2, the motion to join as to both Miss Roberts and other minors? A. Yes. Q. Okay. So then, now, take a look at that and tell me if there's anything there that refreshes your recollection as to something that you have not yet told me about. A. So this refreshes my recollection. Sarah Kellen, I think I referred to her as Miss Kellen. Sarah Kellen was the first name. Nadia Marcinkova, Nadia was the first name there. Adrianna Mucinska was the full name of those -- that's the second echelon of the -- of the -~ of the criminal conspiracy. Oh, this refreshes my recollection that Jeffrey Epstein had answered some questions in the civil litigation. He provided, for example, names of -- of some people who were involved, but he took the Fifth when asked -- he took -- he provided names of some ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 10/20/2015 01:07:28 PM HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010836

02:15:24 02:18:25 02:15:29 02:15:31 02:45:33 02:15:35 02:45:39 ON OO” bh & NH «a 02:18:41 ais 9 ozrsas 10 02:15:51 11 o2z1ss2 12 oz1608 13 ozte14 14 ozter7 15 02:48:18 16 ozte23 17 o2te2s 18 o21631 19 021634 20 ozt635 21 02:16:37 22 ozte4a 23 ozte44 24 caress 25 02:16:48 02:16:50 02:16:52 02:16:55 02:16:59 02:17:02 02:17:05 On Oak GD = 02:17:07 @ 02:47:14 02:17:14 1 0 02:47:18 1 1 02:17:24 1 2 02:47:23 1 3 02:17:25 1 4 02:17:28 1 5 02:17:32 1 6 02:17:34 1 7 02:17:38 1 8 02:47:44 1 9 02:17:43 20 02:17:48 21 02:17:47 22 02:17:49 23 021762 24 02:17:55 25 10/20/2015 01:07:28 PM 109 people who would have relevant information in the civil cases, but when asked in deposition about Mr. Dershowitz, he took the Fifth. So I -- I found it significant that for some people, he was willing to answer questions, but with regard to Mr. Dershowitz, he took his -- he invoked his Fifth Amendment right against compelled self-incrimination presumably because revealing what he knew about Mr. Dershowitz would, you know, cause criminal -- criminal charges potentially to be filed against him. There was a common scheme or plan, and I'll elaborate on that in a moment, but yeah, one of -- so this was another point, I mentioned that -- that there had been three efforts to get information from Mr. Dershowitz by way of a 2009 deposition request, a 2011 deposition request, and further follow-up correspondence from counsel on that, and a 2013 document request all propounded to Mr, Dershowitz that had not gone answered. Yeah, and this was -- yeah, I'm sorry, this slipped my mind at the time -- but when -- when we saw Mr. Dershowitz not responding to these answers, you know, maybe the mail didn't get delivered to him or something like that. I don't -- I suppose that's, you ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 know, a theoretical possibility. But -- but the reason I ruled out that possibility, first, it didn't seem likely; but secondly, there was a pattern of Mr. Epstein's associates evading efforts to get information from them. And so let me just go back to the earliest instance of that. According to the Chief of Police in the Palm Beach -- of the Palm Beach Police Department, Mr. Dershowitz had said that he would make available Mr. Epstein for questions about the ~- the sex, you know, abuse that was going on. And, you know, Mr, Dershowitz had said to the Palm Beach Police Department, yeah, we will make him available; no, we got to reschedule it; you know, and then another time, reschedule, another time. And so there were multiple -- according to the Chief of Police, there had been multiple, you know, requests to interview Mr. Epstein and Mr. Dershowitz had repeatedly said: Oh, yeah, we will schedule that, and then it hadn't happened. Now, obviously, there could have been a situation there where, you know, an emergency had come up for Mr. Epstein and he wasn't able to make a schedule or something like that. But what I saw was a -~ was a pattern of offers to -- to meet and then withdrawals, and that seemed to me to be a deliberately calculated ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (254) 331-4400 Page 109 to 112 of 151 111 o21e00 1 strategy to sort of stall the investigation to say: aie03 2 Well, we will get you Epstein; oh, we can't meet now; 02:18:03 3 oh, we will get it now -- and then -- and so forth. ozte04 | 4 And one of the things that I noted from all oztecs «5 ~@6that was that Mr. Dershowitz, as Mr. Epstein's attorney, ozis02 «6 never ultimately produced Epstein for a meeting with the oz1e14 7 Palm Beach Police Department, having made another offer. oni = 8 Now, obviously, something could have happened owis 9 there, I mean, I don't -- you know, I don't know what 021821 10 was the communications and so forth, but as an attorney 021824 11 trying to get information and unable to do that, I had 021822 12 to make some reasonable inferences. o21820 13 And so one of the inferences I began to draw 21631 14 was that this was a stall tactic by Mr. Dershowitz, and o218:34 15 in my view, potentially, an unethical one, but I 021837 16 don't -- I don't think we need to get into that in this o2is3e 17 ~~ litigation. oztazo 18 What I saw was a stall tactic going on, 02184419 and -- and the reason I think it was a stall tactic, as o2146 20 we are sitting here now in, what is it, October of 2015, e151 21 and Mr. Epstein has never been willing to answer 021884 22 questions about his sexual abuse of these girls. oz1ess 23 And this was back in around -- what was it? 021901 24 I quess it would be 2005, 2006, you know, roughly a oz1906 25 decade ago, Mr. Dershowitz was offering to make Epstein ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 112 oz1007 1 available. And then that never happened, and given the o2te11 2 ten-year pattern that -- that developed -- I guess I 21912 3 should go back. I'm sorry. Let me correct my answer. oz 4 We should go back to December 30th, 2014. So ota7 § there -- there appeared to be about an eight-year period 021921 § of time during which Mr. Epstein had refused to answer o2z1924 Y any questions about his sexual abuse of girls and yet, o21322 8 Mr. Dershowitz said, oh, it’s just a scheduling issue 021930 9 and -- and we will get the Palm Beach Police Department oz1933 10 to -- to, you know, to meet and ~- and learn all this. oztsa7 14 The other thing that I'm -- that I'm seeing o21¢30 12 here, so now there's -- there's -- Mr. Dershowitz had 021942 13 been involved in concealing Mr. Epstein from the Palm oz1e46 14 Beach Police Department, but there were others that had o2te47 18 done similar sorts of things. ozra40 16 So one of them was a Ghislaine Maxwell. I oz1955 17 will just call her Glenn Maxwell. I think that's kind o2z955 18 of the nickname I understand she goes by. oztese 19 So Glenn Maxwell -- remember, she is -- she 21959 20 is the one, you know, I think the record is clear, in ~~ e200 21 in--in litigation that, you know, an allegation has 22006 22 been made that she was the one that -- that brought o22008 23 Virginia Roberts into the -- into the sex trafficking, o22012 24 and was heavily involved with -- you know, on all the -- o22015 25 not all the flights, but on many of the flights with ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 28 of 38 sheets HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010837

113 o22017 1 Jeffrey Epstein where -- where this seemed to be going 22019 2 onand was very close to Epstein, staying at the mansion 022022 3 frequently. 022023 4 And so she would, obviously, be -- I guess if 022023 § you have Epstein at the -- the top of the -- you know, o22027 § the kingpin of the operation, Maxwell would be, you 022030 7 know, a close second or certainly at, you know, the 022032 § higher echelon. 22033 9 So, obviously, someone who would have, you 22035 10 know, very significant information about, you know, the 022033 14 sex trafficking, who were the other people that the -- 022041 12 the girls were being trafficked to, what kind of abuse 02:20:43 13 was going on, you know, what kinds of sex toys were 022046 14 being used to abuse them, because I think it was in her 022048 15 room or -- or adjacent to her room that many of these -- o22082 16 these devices were located, and so she would have had 022055 17 very significant information to provide. 02.2057 18 And so in connection with the civil cases 022100 19 that some of the girls had filed against Mr. Epstein, 022102 20 her deposition was set, in fact, by my co-counsel, o22105 21 Mr. Edwards, and then there was some haggling over a o22i10 22 confidentiality agreement, you know, what are we o2212 23 gonna -- and that had all been worked out, and then she o22i14 24 was set for a deposition and finally agreed, you know, o22116 25 to a deposition. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 114 zai 1 And just shortly, you know, I think a couple eza1e 2 of days before that deposition, she canceled. And well, 022123 3 she didn't cancel. Her -- her attorney called to cancel 022123 4 the deposition and represented that Miss Maxwell was o2z2120 5 outside the United States of America and had no plans to o22133 § return back to the United States. o22i35 | 7 And $0, at that point, the deposition was -- o22140 8 was not able to go forward. But it turned out that she o22143 9 had not left the United States for an extended period of o22146 10 time. She was spotted later at a wedding of a prominent o22140 11 person in New York. ozaiso 12 And so that was Maxwell fitting into this 02:21:52 13 pattern of, you know, Epstein was being told -- you 02:21:56 14 know, the Palm Beach Police Department being told by 022157 15 Dershowitz that Epstein will answer your questions, and o22200 16 then, you know, not -- not getting information, Maxwell 022203 17 evading the deposition. 022206 18 Jean Luc Brunel was another person who seemed o22200 19 to be very much involved in -- in trafficking the girls, o2z2210 20 and it was the same situation. A deposition was set to 022213 21 ‘try to get answers, you know, who is involved, which 022216 22 girls are involved, what are their names, what's -~ 022217 23 what's going on? o2:22:18 24 And so Brunel's deposition is set and then 022223 25 he -~ he finagles out of it too. I don't recall exactly ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 29 of 38 sheets 02:22:28 02:22:31 02:22:33 02:22:35 02:22:39 02:22:38 02:22:42 ON OO hw NH a 02:22:44 @ 02:22:46 10 02:22:52 1 1 02:22:49 o222s7 12 o2zese 13 o22a01 14 oz2303 15 o2a30s 16 22011 17 22313 18 022317 19 022318 20 oz2a1e 24 o22a2 22 022326 23 oz2a28 24 oz2a34 25 02:23:38 02:23:43 02:23:47 02:23:52 02:23:54 02:23:57 02:24:00 On Oa h WH = 02:24:01 o 02:24:03 10 oz2ao7 14 or2a1 12 e22ate 13 e227 14 15 16 17 o22427 18 022431 19 oz2aa7 20 oz2aas 21 or2aa7 22 oz2aag 23 erase 24 oz2ase 25 02:24:05 02:24:19 02:24:21 02:24:24 Page 113 to 116 of 151 115 what his excuse was, but, you know, evaded the deposition and, in fact, later information came to light he was hiding out in, you know, in the mansion of Epstein while he's claiming he's unavailable for -- for deposition. So -- so this pattern of Mr. Dershowitz, you know, where 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 this sex trafficking ring evading questions, you know, quite in violation of court orders and depositions and things -- I shouldn't say court order -- in violation of the deposition notices that were being sent and agreements being made, you know, through counsel. And then in addition to that, I had this, so why -- why would you think that, you know, there's this sex trafficking, you know, ring going on? It sounds kind of farfetched. Well -- 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. It depicted Glenn Maxwell, Prince Andrew, and Virginia Roberts, and the -- at the time that it looked ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 116 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 ~~ where Prince Andrew lived. And so here was Prince Andrew with this underage girl with Glenn Maxwell, the -- the right-hand girl, if that's the right expression -- I probably should say -- strike that -- right-hand woman of -- of -- 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 -- that exists in England was now involved in -- in sexual abuse. And so that created grave concern about, how far did this sex trafficking ring reach; what were their connections; what were their abilities to influence, you ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 10/20/2015 01:07:28 PM HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010838

02:25:01 02:25:04 02:25:07 02:25:10 02:25:15 02:25:17 02:25:21 on OO hk WD 02:25:22 @ 02:25:29 o22832 10 ozas3s 11 o2z2s37 12 oz2sa2 13 02:25:46 14 o22s:4a 15 02:25:52 16 02253 17 02:25:53 18 ozasss 19 02:25:56 20 oz2sss 21 02:26:00 22 02:26:03 23 oz26.03 24 022604 25 02:26:07 02:26:08 02:26:11 02:26:12 02:26:15 02:26:17 02:26:20 02:26:21 oman OOH bh OD 02:26:24 oz2625 10 oz2626 11 02:26:28 12 ozae30 13 0226:30 14 022630 15 02:26:34 16 ozzeas 17 o22635 18 o22636 19 022639 20 ozes40 21 oz2643 22 oz2645 23 oz26a7 24 ozzea0 25 417 know, law enforcement agencies in those countries, you know, in England, or law enforcement agencies in this country, through -- through power that, you know, 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 -- 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 your refreshed 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 a 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 the Jong answers. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 118 THE WITNESS: Well, I wasn't trying to -- let me be clear. I want the record to 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 -- let's have a narrower question, and -- but you wanted the broad question and that's why I did this, so I wasn't... BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. Mr. Cassell, I apologize for attempting humor in this intense situation. A. This is very important to me. Q. I--I--I-- A. This is not -- this is not something that I find funny. Q. And -- well, it -- like I say, it's very important to Mr. Dershowitz, or 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. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 10/20/2015 01:07:28 PM 02:26:51 02:26:53 02:26:55 02:26:55 02:26:58 02:26:58 02:26:58 ON Oa hk OD = 02:27:01 @ 02:27:02 02:27:04 10 02:27:06 11 02:27:09 1 2 o2a712 13 czars 14 oeris 15 oza716 16 oza718 17 o22719 18 ozar21 19 o2s0e1 20 o2a041 24 023047 22 oxa047 23 023047 24 o23048 25 02:30:48 02:30:50 02:30:52 02:30:53 02:30:54 02:30:55 02:30:56 02:31:00 OoOOnN OO bh WH — 02:31:03 o23104 10 02:31:06 11 ozat08 12 ozatoa 13. ozaros 14 ozantt 15 ozsit1 16 ozait1 17 02:31:13 18 ozs 19 o2at24 20 o2zai:26 21 02327 22 o2z31:33 2S ozsi30 24 ozarar 25 Page 117 to 120 of 151 4119 Mr. Dershowitz was trying to do the same thing and it is a difficult situation. A. Q. All right. So I was not trying to make light of the questions I'm asking you. A. Q. A. Q. Right. This involves sexual abuse -- I understand that. ~~ of multiple girls. I understand that. Your -- 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 -- that part is not true, but I will ask questions -- A. I believe that part is true. THE WITNESS: 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. (Thereupon, Kenneth A. Sweder, Esquire, Alan M. Dershowitz and Carolyn Cohen left the proceedings.) ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 420 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: Oh, I'm sorry. I just realized that she stepped out to get water, I believe. I didn't ask. I'm sure it's probably okay -- THE WITNESS: MR. SCAROLA: MR. SIMPSON: THE WITNESS: It's all right. It's all right. That's okay with you? 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. Q. Sure, 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. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 30 of 38 sheets HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010839

Exhibit 4 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010840

nN a E-mail: [email protected] ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 4 APPEARANCES CONTINUED 2 BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA 3 Telephonicatiy on behalf of Jeffrey Epstein: 3 CASE NO. CACE 15-000072 DARREN K.INDYKE, PLLC 4 4 BY: DARREN K. INDYKE, ESQUIRE 5 BRADLEY J. EDWARDS and PAUL G. CASSELL, 575 Lexington Avenue 6 § 4th Floor 7 Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants, New York, New York 10022 Te. 6 Tel; 212.971.1314 8 ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ, t Also Present: Defendant /Counterclaim Plaintiff. 8 DON SAVOY, Videographer 9 BRADLEY 3. EXWARDS ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ (Telephonically) VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF 19 PAUL G, CASSELL 1 TAKEN ON BEHALF DF THE DEFENDANT 42 VOLUME TZ, PAGES 152 to 335 13 14 15 16 Saturday, Dctober 17, 2015 47 8:32 a.m. - 12:14 p.m, 18 19 425 North Andrews Avenue 20 uite Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 24 22 Theresa Tomaselli, RMR 23 24 ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS 25 (954) 331-4400 ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS {954) 331-4400 4 APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL 4 INDEX OF EXAMINATION 2 On behalf of the Plaintiffs: a WENA Eid PAGE 3 SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA 3 PAUL G. CASSELL 4 BARNHART & SHIPLEY, P.A. BY: JOHN SCAROLA, ESQUIRE 4 CONTINUED DIRECT EXAMINATION 160 5 2139 Paim Beach Lakes Boulevard BY MR. SIMPSON West Palm Beach, Florida 33409 § 6 Tel: 561.686.6300 Fax: 561.383.9541 6 INDEX TO EXHIBITS 7 E-mail: [email protected] 8 7 On behalf of Virginia Roberts: 8 ECE DBEL DESCRIP TLON PAGE 9 BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER, LLP 10 BY: SIGRID STONE McCAWLEY, ESQUIRE 9 401 East Las Olas Boulevard Cassels 1.D. Exhibit No. 4 - document 203 11 Suite 1200 10 produced by the witness Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 12 Tel: 954.356.0011 4 Cassell's 1.D. Exhibit No, 5 - copy of 229 Fax: 954.356.0022 ad AYEES LOOK 13 E-mail: smccawley@ bsfllp.com 42 14 Cassell's 1.0. Exhibit No. 6 - series of 309 On behalf of the Defendant: 13 e-mails, Bates numbered BE-510 ~- -514 16 WILEY REIN LLP 14 16 BY: RICHARD A. SIMPSON, ESQUIRE AND: NICOLE A. RICHARDSON, ESQUIRE 45 7 1776 K Street Northwest Washington, DC 20006 16 18 Tel: 202.719.7000 Fax: 202.719.7049 17 19 E-mail: [email protected] 20 18 Also on behalf of the Defendant: 21 19 (Original Exhibits have been attached to the COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, P.A. original transcript.) 22 BY: THOMAS EMERSON SCOTT, 3R., ESQUIRE 20 9150 South Dadeland Boulevard 4 23 Dadeland Centre II - Suite 1400 22 Miami, Florida 33156 23 24 Tel: 305.350.5329 24 Fax: 305.373.2294 25 ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 10/20/2015 01:08:15 PM 1 of 46 sheets Page 152 to 155 of 335 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010841

3 4 oooaot 5 oo0a03 6 oaooor | 7 covo10 8 ooo; 9 oo-oo14 10 ooo017 11 oo0019 12 00:00:20 13 oxo023 14 oo002s 15 oooa2e 16 0000.27 17 oo.0030 18 oo00:30 19 oooo3s 20 oo0o36 21 oo-0039 22 oo0044 23 oo.oocs 24 oo-00s0 25 00:00:52 00.00:55 00:01:04 00:01:05 00:01:10 00:04:13 00:01:16 an Ooh Wh = 00:01:20 wo 00:01:23 ooor2s 10 oo.0129 11 00.0131 12 ooo: 13 coorar 14 oo.orso 15 coors 16 coors 17 coor? 18 ooorss 19 ooorso 20 ooorss 24 oo.orss 22 coors? 23 oo.01s9 24 oo-o200 25 10/20/2015 01:08:15 PM 156 DEPOSITION OF PAUL G. CASSELL Saturday, October 17, 2015 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are now on the video record. Today is Saturday, the 17th day of October, 2015. The time is 8:32 a.m. We are here at 425 North Andrews Avenue, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, for the purpose of taking the videotaped deposition of Paul G. Cassell. The case is Bradley J. Edwards and Paul G. Cassell versus Alan M. Dershowitz. The court reporter is Terry Tomaselli, and the videographer is Don Savoy, both from Esquire Deposition Solutions. Will counsel please announce their appearances for the record. MR. SCAROLA: Jack Scarola on behalf of the Plaintiffs. MR. SIMPSON: Richard Simpson of Wiley Rein on behalf of the Defendant and Counterclaim Plaintiff, Alan Dershowitz. With me is my colleague, Nicole Richardson, and Thomas Scott of Cole, Scott & Kissane, also for Mr. -~ Professor Dershowitz. MR. SCAROLA: Before we begin the deposition, ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 157 we were informed for the first time yesterday morning of the existence of a recording of a telephone communication between Alan Dershowitz and a woman identified only as Rebecca. That information was conveyed to us subsequent to Professor Dershowitz's sworn testimony that no recording existed, but now that we know that the recording existed and that it was obviously made according to the representations given to us, prior to the completion of the responses to our earlier discovery requests, I would like to know whether it is the Defendant's position that it is necessary for us to propound a new discovery request to get information that clearly should have been disclosed in response to the earlier discovery request. Is that the position that you're taking? MR. SIMPSON: First, Mr. Scarola, I believe you have mischaracterized Professor Dershowitz's testimony. You didn't ask the question whether he made a recording. Yesterday morning, he provided that information in response to a different question. MR. SCAROLA: His exact testimony was: I ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 158 oo201 1 never thought to record it, but that's fine. e020 2 MR. SIMPSON: We don't -- we don't need to ooo205 3 make that -- oozes 4 MR. SCAROLA: We don't need to discuss that. coors § The question is -- oooz0s § MR. SIMPSON: What you're saying does -- ooor0s «7 MR. SCAROLA: -- are you going to produce the ooozos 8 recording without the necessity of anew request cooz10 9 to produce, or will it be necessary for us to o0213 10 file a new request to produce? oo0215 11 MR. SIMPSON: As Mr. Scott indicated oxo2z17 12 yesterday, we will respond to you to the o.o219 13 discovery request. We will confer at a break and 00223 14 respond to that question. I don't want to take ooo224 15 time on the record debating it. After Mr. Scott oooz28 16 and I have conferred at a break, we will respond oooz23 17 further to your question. ooo230 18 MR. SCAROLA: All right. So that the record oooz31 19 is clear, it is our position that the recording ooozas 20 itself, any evidence of any communication between oooza0 21 Mr. Dershowitz and Rebecca and/or Michael, any oovzas 22 notes with respect to any such communications, ooozse 23 text messages, e-mails, and an accurate privilege ooozs7 24 log as to everything that is being withheld is ooo: 25 responsive to the earlier request to produce, and ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 159 oooxos «1 that the obligation was to have provided it to us cooxos 2 previously and is to provide it to us now. 000311 3 We understand that you're considering that ois 4 and you will respond, so we can proceed with the oo31s § deposition. oooats §=§ MR. SIMPSON: Yes. And we disagree about coor 7 that, and as you know, we have a motion to compel ow1s § regarding your inadequate privilege log. oo0s24 9 MS. McCAWLEY: Just before we begin, I'm oo328 10 sorry, I didn't announce my appearance for the oo 11 record. Sigrid McCawley from Boies, Schiller & oo0322 12 Flexner, and I have a standing objection that I'd oo0331 13 just like to repeat on the record. oo0s32 14 MR. SCOTT: Feel better that you got that off ooos32 15 your chest? 000332 16 MS. McCAWLEY: With respect to -- excuse me. 00.0334 17 With respect to my client, Virginia Roberts, oowsar 18 she is asserting her attorney/client privilege ooos32 19 with her attorneys and is not waiving it through coors: 20 any testimony here today, and that I object to oss 21 any testimony elicited that would be used as a oooss7 22 Subject of waiver for her attorney/client ooosss 23 privilege. 24 MR. SIMPSON: Would you reswear the witness, 25 please? Page 156 to 159 of 335 ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 2 of 46 sheets HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010842

ooosor 8 ooos01 9 oo.0401 40 00:04:03 11 00:04:08 12 cooa0 13 00:04:16 14 coos 16 oo0ate 16 coos 17 oooats 18 oo04-20 19 00:04:21 20 00:04:21 21 00:04:24 22 00:04:28 23 00:04:28 24 00:04:30 25 00:04:31 60:04:32 00:04:34 00:04:36 00:04:39 00:04:42 00:04:45 On On hwnd = 00:04:47 wo 00:04:47 00:04:48 10 oo:o4aa 11 oooass 12 ooosss 13 oo-os:00 14 ooos00 15 cooso2 16 ooosos 17 oo-s:08 18 oo0513 19 oo-os:17 20 oo-s1e 21 00:05:21 22 00:05:23 23 00.0523 24 0-05-26 25 3 of 46 sheets Thereupon, PAUL G. CASSELL, having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows: THE WITNESS: I do. CONTINUED DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. Good morning -- A. Good morning. Q. -- Mr. Cassell. As of December 30th, 2014, had you ever met with Virginia Roberts in person? A. Yes. Q. And how many times had you met with her in person? A. Once. When was that? Approximately May 2014. May of 2014? Yes. Who was present for that meeting? I'm just pausing for a second because I don't -- I think we're -- Q. 1-- I'mnot-- A. -- clearly not trying to get into ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 161 attorney/client communication. Q. I’m not asking you for what was said at this point. I'm just asking you who was present. I'm going to ask you where it was, those kind of questions. A. Sure. Yeah, The main person who was present was Bradley J. Edwards, my Co-Plaintiff in this case. Q. Okay. And Miss Roberts obviously was present? A. Yes. Q. Anyone else present? A. You know, there were -- this was at the Farmer, Jaffee office here, and so persons who were associated with the law firm were assisting, but those were the main people. Q. Okay. Do you remember any of those other people associated with the law firm who were present? A. Present for, you know, coming in and assisting, I believe Brad's assistant, Maria, was there, and perhaps others at the firm, but it was -- it was basically Brad and I. Q. Was there anyone else who attended for the entire meeting or a substantial portion of the meeting? A. No. Q. Okay. How long did the meeting last? A. Approximately all day. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 00:05:28 00:05:31 00:05:32 00:05:33 00:05:38 00:05:40 00:05:41 ON Oh OD 00:05:43 ooosas 9 cosas 10 00:05:53 11 00:05:57 12 oo.0ss7 13 oo0803 14 ooo607 15 00:06:09 16 oo.0609 17 ooos12 18 00:06:18 19 oo0622 20 00:06:23 21 000627 22 00.0631 23 00.0632 24 oo0634 25 00:08:35 00:06:38 00:06:40 00:06:43 00:06:46 00:06:49 00:06:51 ON On kh ON 00:06:52 wo 00:06:54 00:06:59 1 0 00:07:04 1 1 00:07:03 1 2 00:07:03 1 3 00:07:07 1 4 00:07:07 1 5 00:07:07 1 6 00:07:07 1 7 00:07:14 1 8 00:07:13 41 9 00:07:15 20 coors 21 00:07:21 22 00:07:22 23 00:07:24 24 00:07:28 25 Page 160 to 163 of 335 162 Q. And when you say "all day," what time period are you referring to? A. 9:00 to 5:00. Q. 9:00 to 5:00. Okay. And was that through lunch; you just stayed through eight hours; is that -- what's your recollection of that? A. Yeah, I remember we were working very hard on ~~ on it, so I think we had, if I recall correctly, had lunch brought in and worked straight through that. Q. Any other meetings in person with Miss Roberts before December 30th of 2014? A. No. Q. Any telephone calls with her that you -- you had, obviously, before December 30th, 2014? A. I believe there were a couple of -- of telephone calls. Q. And can you tell us when those were? A. Let's see. Roughly September 2014. Give or take a month. I mean, you know, sometime after May and before December 30th. Q. Okay. And were those telephone calls between just you and Miss Roberts, or was anyone else on the line? A. No. It was just the two of -- just Miss Roberts and I. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 163 Q. Okay. And are you able to distinguish the calls in your mind as two separate telephone calls? A. 1I--I think there were either one or two calls. I think there may have been two, but it -- it would not have been more than two that I can recall. Q. Okay. How long did each of the telephone calls last? A. Less than five minutes. Q. I'm going to ask you a question now, but before you answer it, pause, because I believe you will be instructed not to answer it -- A. Okay. Q. -- but want to -- I think -- we disagree on the privilege -- A. Sure. Q. -- we believe it’s been waived. My question is: During the meeting, did you discuss Professor Dershowitz? MS. McCAWLEY: I'm going to object to any discussion of what my client told you during any situation where you were representing her as an -- an attorney. MR. SIMPSON: So -- and I think we had an agreement yesterday, if you follow your own counsel's instruction on not answering, are you ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 10/20/2015 01:08:15 PM HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010843

00:07:28 00:07:32 60:07:32 00:07:36 00:07:38 00:07:42 00:07:46 ON Oak WD = 00:07:48 <9} 00:07:49 00:07:52 1 0 00:07:52 1 1 00:07:53 1 2 00:07:54 1 3 00:07:58 1 4 00:08:01 1 5 00:08:04 1 6 00:08:07 1 7 00:08:10 1 8 00:08:13 1 9 00:08:14 20 00:08:16 21 00:08:21 22 00:08:24 23 00:08:29 24 00:08:29 25 00:08:29 00:08:30 00:08:30 00:08:30 00:68:32 00:08:36 00:08:36 ON OOH bh OD = 00:08:37 <0} 00:08:39 oooa:aa 10 oo-osa7 11 ovneas 12 oooase 13 00.0850 14 oooes1 15 oo.0s:s2 16 00:08:52 17 oo08ss 18 oo.0ass 19 ooe-se 20 oo:09:00 24 oo0e01 22 oo0s02 23 ooosos 24 oo.os0s 25 10/20/2015 01:08:15 PM 164 also going to follow Miss McCawley's instructions on not answering on behalf of -- MR. SCAROLA: Mr. Cassell will follow the instructions of Virginia Roberts' counsel. It is not his privilege to waive, and he is ethically obliged to respect the direction coming from Virginia Roberts’ counsel. MR. SIMPSON: Yes, I'm -- I'm simply, Mr. Scarola, making my record that the witness -- MR. SCAROLA: I understand that. MR. SIMPSON: Right. We disagree. MR. SCAROLA: I understand, but you can assume the same way I have authorized you to assume that Professor Cassell will follow my instructions, Professor Cassell will also follow all instructions concerning the assertion of attorney/client privilege expressed on the record by Miss McCawley on behalf of Virginia Roberts. MR. SIMPSON: All right. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. So, Mr. Cassell, based on that, I will assume that if I ask you what you recall the discussion being at the meeting or at each of the phone calls, that you're not going to answer those questions; is that correct? ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 165 MS. McCAWLEY: Yes. THE WITNESS: Yeah, obviously not. BY MR, SIMPSON: Q. Okay. A. I mean, I have a duty to my client which I'm going to respect. Q. Allright. So we'll -- we'll take that up later with the judge. As of December 30th, 2014, had you spoken about this case with David Boies, and the question is just: Had you spoken -- MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. _-- not what the discussion was. MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. It's the common-interest privilege. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. I'm only asking if there was a discussion, no substance at all. Just, was there a discussion? MS. McCAWLEY: I'm going to instruct you not to answer that. MR. SIMPSON: Okay. You're taking the position that the fact of whether or not -- MS. McCAWLEY: Yes, because you're also trying to get into the timing of communications, ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 60:09:68 00:09:08 00:09:14 00:09:42 00:09:15 60:09:15 00:09:15 On Oa Bh WN — 00:09:33 <0} 00:08:33 00:09:34 1 0 00:09:36 1 1 00:09:38 1 2 00:09:46 1 3 00:09:42 1 4 00:09:47 1 5 00:09:48 1 6 00:09:48 1 7 00:09:54 1 8 00:09:52 1 9 00:09:54 20 00:09:54 21 00:09:55 22 oooess 23 90:40:02 24 90:40:06 25 ooto10 1 00:10:13 2 votes §=S 00:10:17 4 60:10:20 5 90:10:20 6 90:10:22 7 60:10:23 8 00:40:23 9 00:10:24 1 0 00:10:27 1 1 00:16:29 1 2 00:40:29 1 3 oo:t0-20 14 00:10:29 1 5 60:10:29 1 6 00:10:33 1 7 00:10:33 1 8 90:10:34 1 9 90:10:36 20 00:10:44 21 00:10:42 22 00:10:44 23 00:10:44 24 00:10:45 25 Page 164 to 167 of 335 166 and all that goes into the advice that they were giving her and surrounding that advice, so I would object to that. MR. SCAROLA: Could I have the question read back? (Thereupon, a portion of the record was read by the reporter.) MS. McCAWLEY: And I would like to clarify what case as well that you're referring to. MR. SIMPSON: All right. Let me ask the question, and -- and I will note for the record that yesterday, the witness testified that the fact that Mr. Boies was representing Virginia Roberts was significant to him. So it’s sort of being used as a sword and a shield here, but I have only asked the question. I'll clarify. MR. SCAROLA: We haven't used it any way yet. MR. SIMPSON: Well, the -- the witness volunteered, Shail I put it that way? And we have a waiver. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. But, in any event, my question is: Have you spoken -- before December 30th of 2014, had you spoken with David Boies about Virginia Roberts’ allegations regarding Professor Dershowitz? ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 167 MR. SCAROLA: Without getting into the substance of any such discussions, you can answer that question. THE WITNESS: My recollection is no. MR. SCOTT: I think you're right on that one. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. Okay. So the answer is, no, you had not spoken with him? A. My recollection -- MR, SCAROLA: Judge Scott has issued a ruling, so -- MR. SCOTT: I wrote several opinions on that actually. MR. SCAROLA: -- we'll proceed, THE WITNESS: Let me go back -- MR, SCOTT: In the context of criminal lawyers. THE WITNESS: I'm trying to remember if I wrote any opinions on that one when I was a judge. My -- I don't recall, but -- I don’t recall. I -- my recollection is I had not personally spoken to David Boies before December 30th, 2014, BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. Okay. Had you, before December 30th of 2014, ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 4 of 46 sheets HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010844

00:10:53 00:10:58 00:11:02 00:11:08 00:44:13 00:14:15 00:41:15 On Oar OH = 00:11116 wo 00:11:19 00:41:19 10 00:44:20 41 00:44:24 12 00:44:25 13 00:14:27 14 00:11:28 15 00:11:34 16 00:44:34 17 00:41:34 18 00:14:38 19 00:44:42 20 00:41:45 21 00:11:48 22 00:14:54 23 00:11:53 24 00:14:56 25 00:11:58 00:12:00 00:42:02 00:42:05 00:12:07 00:12:13 00:12:17 On Oak WH 00:12:47 cori 9 ootz22 10 oor225 14 ootz2s 12 oor22e 13 00:12:27 14 corz20 15 oo1232 16 oo1232 17 oosz33 18 oo.tz3s 19 oorza7 20 oorzar 24 00:12:38 22 oot240 23 oo:1450 24 oor4s0 25 5 of 46 sheets 168 spoken with any other lawyers at Mr. Boies' firm? A. My recollection is, no. Q. And after December 30th of 2014, have you spoken with Mr. Boies about Virginia Roberts's allegations against -- MS. McCAWLEY: Again, I'm going to object. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. -- Professor Dershowitz? MS. McCAWLEY: Sorry. I will let you finish. I'm objecting to this. I think it gets into the substance of conversations under the common-interest privilege, whether there was a conversation, but you're getting into the substance of what the conversation was about, and I think that is a violation of her -- her privilege. MR. SCAROLA: And just so that I can clarify our position on the record, I think that we can identify the general subject matter in order to support our position that it falls within the common-interest privilege. So we are willing to answer the question about the general subject matter to support our assertion of common-interest privilege, but not get into the substance of the communications beyond that. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 00:14:54 00:14:54 00:14:57 00:14:59 00:15:04 00:15:04 00:15:06 ON Oar OND = 00:15:07 oo 00:45:08 cots10 10 cote: 114 ots 12 cots 13 oorsis 14 corsa 15 oo1s21 16 00:15:25 17 001528 18 0018.28 19 00:15:31 20 oo-1s:31 24 00:18:34 22 001837 23 ontsa2 24 ootsse 25 169 MR. SIMPSON: And I believe it's the same question that was answered a moment ago for a different time period, and again, I'm not asking for any substance. I'm just asking whether, since December 30th, 2014, you have discussed the allegations by Virginia Roberts against Professor Dershowitz. THE WITNESS: I would like to confer with my counsel on that question. It gets into a complicated legal issue that I'm not sure I can -- MR. SIMPSON: You want to confer on a privilege issue; is that right? THE WITNESS: I want to confer with my counsel before answering that question anyway. MR. SIMPSON: I just want to clarify -- MR. SCAROLA: With respect to privilege. MR. SIMPSON: All right. As long as it's with respect to privilege, you're entitled to do that. THE WITNESS: Okay. THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are going off the video record, 8:45 a.m. (Thereupon, a recess was taken.) THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are back on the video ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 00:15:45 00:18:46 00:15:47 00:15:47 00:15:48 00:15:54 00:18:52 On Oak &O DH = 00:15:53 oo 00:15:55 oo15:s7 10 00:15:58 41 ootsss 12 ooteor 13 oor602 14 cores 15 ooteos 16 oxteos 17 ooreoo 18 00:16:14 49 oote1s 20 oore1s 21 ooters 22 ontet7 23 001620 24 oot627 25 Page 168 to 171 of 335 170 record, 8:47 a.m. MR. SCAROLA: As it turns out, while we may reach some issue of privilege at some point in this discussion, the answer to your pending question is, no, so there's no privilege concern. MR. SIMPSON: All right. I'll -- I'll ask the witness for the -- MR. SCAROLA: Sure. MR. SIMPSON: -- the -- the answer. I'll move to -- I'll reask the question. THE WITNESS: Sure, That will be good. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. My question is: I believed you had already answered the question as to before December 30th, 2014, you had discussed Miss Roberts’ allegations against Professor Dershowitz, and you said, no; is that right? MR. SCAROLA: David Boies, MR. SIMPSON: David Boies. I'm sorry. THE WITNESS: Before December 30th, no discussions that I can recall with David Boies. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. After December 30th, 2014, did you have any discussions with David Boies about Professor Dershowitz? A. CanI-- MR. SCAROLA: You can answer yes or no. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 171 THE WITNESS: Yes. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. You did. A. Yes. Q. What was the substance of those communications? MS. McCAWLEY: I'm going to object to that. You -~ it's under the common-interest privilege and it's Virginia's privilege to waive, and she's not waiving it. MR. SIMPSON: Okay, MR. SCAROLA: We -- we assert the common-interest privilege with regard to the substance as well. MR, SIMPSON: All right. And that -- that will be -~ that will be asserted as to all questions about the substance of the discussions with Mr. Boies; is that right? MR. SCAROLA: I can't say that for sure. MR. SIMPSON: All right. Let me ask my question then. MR. SCAROLA: And let -- maybe this -- maybe this will help you and maybe it won't. But, obviously, there have been some public statements with regard to this general area. If the ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 10/20/2015 01:08:15 PM HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010845

00:16:33 00:16:34 00:16:37 00:16:39 60:16:41 00:16:42 00:16:45 00:16:47 00:16:47 On anh WH = 9 ootess 10 ooteaa 11 oo1ess 12 cotess 13 ootess 14 00:17:00 15 0017.00 16 oo1701 17 00:17:05 18 00:17:08 19 oo170s 20 oot 24 oo1717 22 00:17:12 23 oo171s 24 cos 25 00:17:23 00:17:26 00:17:34 00:17:40 00:17:42 00:17:43 00:47:44 00:17:47 00:17:54 On Oak WH = 9 oo.17:56 10 00:17:58 1 1 00:18:06 1 2 00:18:01 1 3 00:18:02 1 4 00:18:04 1 5 00:18:06 1 6 00:18:06 1 7 00:18:06 1 8 00:18:06 1 9 00:18:14 20 00:18:14 21 00:18:17 22 00:19:54 23 00:19:54 24 00:20:06 25 172 communications were not considered to be oo:2008 41 privileged at the time that they were made, we coz 2 can answer questions about that. If they were oo2018 3 considered to be privileged at the time they were oo2021 4 made, we can't answer questions. oo2027 5 So I can't tell you that there's a blanket oo:2033 § assertion. We need to hear the question. 2037 7 THE WITNESS: I need the question back. oo2040 8 MR. SIMPSON: All right. o2040 9 BY MR. SIMPSON: oo204s 10 Q. What did you discuss with Mr. Boies about the oo204e 11 allegations against Professor Dershowitz? 0020-47 12 MR. SCAROLA: And that is common-interest 00:20:48 13 privilege information and we do assert a oo2zoso 14 privilege. oo2053 15 BY MR. SIMPSON: oo20:53 16 Q. Did you discuss with Mr. Boies any oo20:s4 17 discussions he had had with Professor Dershowitz? 002058 18 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. oo2088 19 MR. SCAROLA: Same objection. Same oozoss 20 instruction. o02050 241 BY MR. SIMPSON: oo2100 22 Q. Did you discuss with Mr. Boies any documents oo2108 23 that Mr. Boies had reviewed? oo2r09 24 MR. SCAROLA: Well, let me -- again, I don't ooztz 25 ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 173 want to be asserting a privilege to questions as oo213 1 to which the answer is no, so you can answer coz 2 generally as to whether the subject matter was ozs 3 covered in any discussion that you had with oo2t20 4 Mr. Boies. oo2r22 5 THE WITNESS: Okay. oo2r23 | § MR. SCAROLA: Okay. If the answer is no. If coz «7 the answer -- as I sink down in this chair, if oz § the answer may be yes, you can't respond. oo212s 9 MR. SIMPSON: I -- I -- that's a new version. oo2135 10 MS. McCAWLEY: I'm afraid -- yeah, I want oozes 11 to -- I'm sorry. I want to confer on that cores 12 because I have an objection. coarse 13 THE WITNESS: I have to say I want to confer, ozs 14 I'm confused, too, so let's take a short break. coarse 15 MR. SIMPSON: Again, you're conferring on the | oo2:ar 16 privilege now, not the substance? ovata 17 THE WITNESS: That's right. coaras 18 MR. SCAROLA: Can we go off the record? oo2rs: 19 MR. SIMPSON: Yes. ovzrs1 20 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Going off the video oars: 21 record, 8:48 a.m. oo2s3 22 (Thereupon, a recess was taken.) ooarss 23 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are back on the video | co21:55 24 record, 8:52 a.m. oo2ise 25 ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 10/20/2015 01:08:15 PM Page 172 to 175 of 335 174 MR. SCAROLA: Because of concern about a -- an inadvertent potential waiver of the work-product privilege, while it is not our intent to assert a privilege with regard to nonexistent communications, any effort to identify the subject matter of communications in the questions that you asked will require that we assert work-product privilege with regard to those questions. MR. SIMPSON: Okay. We disagree, obviously, on that position. MR. SCAROLA: We understand. MR. SIMPSON: So I will ask some additional questions and we will see if the witness answers them. MR. SCAROLA: If it begins: “Did you talk about," the answer is going to be an assertion of privilege. MR. SIMPSON: Okay. MR. SCAROLA: Okay? MR. SIMPSON: [ll ask the questions. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. Did you discuss with Mr. Boies any meetings Mr. Boies had had with Professor Dershowitz? MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 175 MR. SCAROLA: Objection. Same instruction. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. Did you discuss with Mr. Boies his views as to the credibility of Virginia Roberts? MR. SCAROLA: Same objection. MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. MR. SCAROLA: Same instruction. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. Did you discuss with Mr. Boies any allegations about sexual misconduct by Les Wexner? MR. SCAROLA: Same objection. MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. MR. SCAROLA: Same instruction. MR. SIMPSON: That's the same question you allowed to be answered. Did you -- let me ask it a different way. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. Did you discuss, in any way, Les Wexner with Mr. Boies? MR. SCAROLA: Same objection. MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. MR. SCAROLA: Same instruction. MR. SIMPSON: He's instructed not to answer whether that topic was discussed? MR. SCAROLA: Yes. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 6 of 46 sheets HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010846

00:21:57 00:21:57 00:21:57 00:22:02 00:22:06 00:22:08 00:22:08 on OH hm GW NH a 00:22:08 oO 00:22:10 10 00:22:14 1 1 00:22:12 oo2220 12 002225 13 oo22200 14 oo2231 15 oo2235 16 coz. 17 00:22:40 18 oo:2245 19 oo22zas 20 oazeas 21 oo2249 22 oo2250 23 oo2251 24 oo2253 25 00:22:54 00:22:55 00:22:57 00:23:00 00:23:07 00:23:10 00:23:42 On On & GN = 00:23:12 oo231s 9 00:23:15 10 oo2318 11 00.2319 12 o023:19 13 00.2323 14 oo2323 15 oo2325 16 002325 17 on2328 18 oo2320 19 oo.2335 20 0.2338 21 on2330 22 oo2340 23 coz 24 oo2383 25 7 of 46 sheets 176 MS. McCAWLEY: Yes. MR. SIMPSON: Okay. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. Did you discuss former Prime Minister Barak with Mr. Boies? MR. SCAROLA: Same objection. MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. MR. SCAROLA: Same instruction. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. Yesterday, you mentioned that one of the reasons that supported your conclusion that it -- you had an adequate basis to allege in the joinder motion that the allegations against Professor Dershowitz was that Mr. Boles was representing Virginia Roberts -- yes, Virginia Roberts; do you recall that testimony? A. Yes. Q. And you said that because of how highly regarded Mr. Boies was, I think you mentioned the Bush v. Gore case; is that right? A. Yes. Q. 1 used to work for his opponent in Bush v. Gore case. They are both very good. A. I'm trying -- I was trying to remember. I'm sorry to take time, but who was the other lawyer? Q. Ted Olson. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 00:23:58 00:24:07 00:24:14 00:24:14 00:24:18 00:24:18 00:24:18 00:24:24 00:24:30 00:24:32 00:24:32 00:24:36 00:24:39 00:24:43 00:24:46 00:24:51 00:24:55 90:25:00 00:25:03 On OO hm WS NH «a 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 90:25:04 20 00:25:07 21 00:25:10 00:25:12 22 23 oo2512 24 002515 25 178 discussed Virginia Roberts' allegations of sexual misconduct against Professor Dershowitz with Bob Josefsberg? A. Me personally? Q. Yes, you personally. A. No. Q. After December 30th of 2014, had you -- did you discuss with Mr. Josefsberg Ms. Roberts' allegations against Professor Dershowitz? A. Not personally, no. Q. You say not personally. Are you aware of someone else who had those discussions of -- with Mr. -- had any discussions on that topic with Mr. Josefsberg? MR, SCAROLA: To the extent that that question would call for any information that was communicated to you in the context of the common-interest privilege, you should not answer. THE WITNESS: All right. I'm not going to... MR. SCAROLA: So you -- you can answer it if any such communication came to you outside the context of the common-interest privilege, but you may not include in your response any information derived from the common-interest privilege. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. And my question right now is not the ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 177 A. Ted, that's right. That's... Q. But that's a side note. My question is: Given your high regard for Mr. Boies, would you -- would his views as to the credibility of Virginia Roberts be something that would be important to you in evaluating the case? MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. MR. SIMPSON: Are you instructing him not to answer? MS. McCAWLEY: I mean, is it a hypothetical? MR. SIMPSON: No. I'm just asking whether his views -- those views -- I'm not asking what the views are. I'm simply asking whether those views would be important to him. MR. SCAROLA: You may answer that question. THE WITNESS: Yes. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. And if I -- I may have asked this already, but did you discuss with Mr. Boies his views as to the credibility of Miss Roberts? MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. MR. SCAROLA: Same objection. Same instruction. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. Prior to December 30th of 2014, had you ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 00:25:17 00:25:19 00:25:24 00:25:26 00:25:32 00:26:35 00:25:36 00:25:39 00:25:43 00:25:46 00:25:46 00:25:48 00:25:50 00:25:52 00:25:54 00:25:57 00:26:01 00:26:04 00:26:07 00:26:09 00:26:14 00:26:17 00:26:20 00:26:20 00:26:24 on OO Rh WH «a @ 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 176 to 179 of 335 179 substance. We will get to that. But, to your knowledge -- put -- let me rephrase that. Did someone tell you that they had discussed with Mr. Josefsbergs -- Josefsberg, the allegations made by Miss Roberts against Professor Dershowitz? MR. SCAROLA: You may only answer that question to the extent that you had any communication regarding that subject matter with someone outside the common-interest privilege, or the attorney/client privilege for that matter. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. I'm simply -- I'm not asking for substance, just the name if you did. MR. SCAROLA: Well, I understand that, but following along the same lines as before, you are asking us to identify the subject matter of a communication that is privileged. We won't answer questions regarding the subject matter of privileged communications, but if Professor Cassell had a conversation with Sam Smith standing on the street corner about Bob Josefsberg, he can answer that question. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. Did you have a conversation with anyone -- just narrow question: Did you have a conversation with ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 10/20/2015 01:08:15 PM HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010847

00:26:26 00:26:32 00:26:36 00:26:38 00:26:41 00:26:42 00:26:42 ON ah WH = 00:26:43 @ 00:26:44 00:26:46 10 oozes 11 00:26:51 12 00:26:55 13 00:26:56 14 oozeso 15 oo2701 16 oo2ror 17 00:27:01 18 oo2707 19 00:27:15 20 ooze 24 overs 22 00:27:21 23 00:27:23 24 00:27:23 25 00:27:23 1 ooa723 «2 00:27:27 3 ooar27 «4 oo27:30 5 00:27:31 6 oo2ra1 7 coarse 8 oo273a7 | 9 00:27:40 10 oo27a1 14 00:27:44 12 oo27as 13 coarse 14 oo.27so 15 oo-arss 16 oo27s7 17 oo:2800 18 oo:28.01 19 oo2804 20 oo2808 24 oo2812 22 oo2814 23 00:28:17 24 00:28:20 25 10/20/2015 01:08:15 PM 180 anyone who told you that they, that person, had discussed the subject matter of Virginia Roberts's allegations against Professor Dershowitz with Mr. Josefsberg? Just did you discuss it with anyone? MR, SCAROLA: Same objection. Same instruction. MR. SIMPSON: Okay. MR. SCAROLA: If you want to rephrase the question to ask him whether he had such a conversation with anyone outside the attorney/client or work-product privilege, that's a question that we are obliged to answer. The question, as you phrased it, is a question that we are precluded from answering. MR. SIMPSON: That's a very strange notion of privilege. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. But let me ask it this way: Did you discuss with anyone who is not an attorney -- let me rephrase it a different way. You testified yesterday about your understanding of the scope of the alleged common-interest privilege, correct? A. Yes. Q. Putting aside the people within the scope of ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 181 that privilege -- A. Yes. Q. -- that you identified -- A. Uh-huh. Q. -- your definition of it -- A. Right. That's right. Q. -~ did you discuss the topic -- did anyone tell you they had discussed the topic of Virginia Roberts's allegations against Professor Dershowitz with Mr. Josefsberg? MR. SCAROLA: You may not answer that question to the extent the question still encompasses attorney/client privileged communications. If you want to rephrase the question to exclude both common-interest privileged communications and attorney/client privileged communications, that's a question we are prepared to answer. Otherwise, we are prohibited from answering the question as phrased as a consequence of it encompassing privileged communications. MR. SIMPSON: As he defined the common-interest privileged group, it included attormey/client, but I think at this point the explanations you're providing aren't really ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 00:28:23 00:28:25, 00:28:27 00:28:29 00:28:31 00:28:33 00:28:38 ON Dah WD = 00:28:36 002839 9 00:28:42 10 oo2eas 14 oo2847 12 oozeso 13 00:28:50 14 oozes: 15 ooza62 16 oo2063 17 00:28:56 18 oo2838 19 oo:20.05 20 oo2e12 24 oozere 22 00.2920 23 00.2920 24 oo2920 25 00:29:20 00:29:22 00:29:27 00:28:33 00:29:35 00:29:40 00:29:46 ON Dar WH 00:29:47 @ 00:29:48 oo2a4a 10 00:29:50 11 oo:3003 12 00:30:12 13 oo3015 14 cosets 15 oo3018 16 oso 17 00:30:20 18 oo3025 19 o0:3028 20 003031 21 oo3s031 22 00:30:31 23 002034 24 oo:30:34 25 182 helpful. So please just instruct him to answer or not answer, and we will let the judge decide. MR. SCAROLA: Well, the instruction -- I only gave the explanation in the hope that it might facilitate the examination and allow you to move to areas where you can get substantive information. I apologize if you consider it a waste of time. So I will simply instruct Professor Cassell not to answer the question as phrased. If you ever want an explanation as to the basis of my instruction, I'm prepared to give that to you. MR. SIMPSON: Thank you. That -- that's a helpful way to proceed. MR. SCAROLA: Okay. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. Have you -- well, let's start this way: Have you discussed with any of the attorneys within what you described as the common-interest attorney/client group, whether that person had discussed with Mr. Josefsberg Virginia Roberts's allegations against Professor Dershowitz? MR. SCAROLA: Same objection. Same instruction, ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 183 BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. Have you discussed with anyone who is not an attorney for Miss Roberts whether -- strike that. Has anyone who is not an attorney for Miss Roberts told you that they had discussed with Mr. Josefsberg the allegations against -- by Virginia Roberts against Professor Dershowitz? MR. SCAROLA: Same objection. Same instruction. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. Have you personally spoken with anyone else at Mr. Josefsberg's firm, other than him, about Virginia Roberts's allegations against Professor Dershowitz? A. Not to my knowledge. MS. McCAWLEY: I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Can you read that back? MR. SCAROLA: Was a communication with anyone else in Bob Josefsberg -- Bob Josefsberg's firm, personal communication between Professor Cassell and any firm member of Bob Josefsberg. MS. McCAWLEY: Okay. BY MR, SIMPSON: Q. And the answer was, not that you recall? A. Not to my knowledge. I don't know all the members of his firm, but I certainly have no ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 Page 180 to 183 of 335 8 of 46 sheets HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010848

00:30:37 00:30:39 00:30:40 00:30:41 00:30:43 00:30:46 00:30:49 00:30:51 oon Ooh OD = 00:30:54 00:30:56 1 0 00:30:58 1 1 00:31:04 1 2 00:31:01 1 3 00:31:04 1 4 00:31:04 1 5 00:31:04 1 6 00:31:05 1 7 00:34:10 1 8 00:34:12 1 9 00:31:15 20 00:34:15 21 00:31:18 22 00:31:20 23 oo:3125 24 oo:31:26 25 00:31:27 00:31:29 00:34:33 00:34:35 00:31:38 00:31:40 00:31:43 ON Ooh wn = 00:34:46 wo 00:34:47 oo31:s0 10 oo3:63 11 oo:31:55 12 oor 13 oo:3201 14 oo-se0s 15 oo:32.08 16 oo:a200 17 oo:3211 18 003212 19 oo3213 20 cosas 214 oo3219 22 oo3210 23 oos219 24 003220 25 9 of 46 sheets 184 recollection of talking te, you know, anyone who is -- who was in his firm. Q. Okay. A. I--+I think the record should be clear, I'm -- I'm an attorney and a law professor in Salt Lake City, Utah, and my understanding, he's an attorney here in Florida. So I don't ordinarily interact with -- with, you know, attorneys in Florida, other than the ones that I'm interacting with on -- on this case. MR. SCAROLA: Which is now occurring on a very regular basis. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. Mr. Cassell -- MR. SCOTT: No teaming, Mr. Scarola, please. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q._ -- did -- didn't you testify yesterday that the fact that Mr. Josefsberg's firm had filed a complaint against Miss Roberts, who is also your client, to be significant to your evaluation of the case? A. Yes. QQ. And if it -- if that was significant to evaluation of the case, why are you telling us you don't normally talk with attorneys in Florida? Doesn't he represent -- at one point, represent the same client? A. Right. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 185 Q. And so wouldn't it be natural for you to be speaking with -- at Jleast within the realm of something one might expect for you to speak? A. If I were a solo representative of Virginia Roberts, that would be the case, but I think you're obviously aware that I have co-counsel on this case, and there are other attorneys who are also participating in this matter. So I think it would be obvious that if there's a division of labor, it might not be along the lines that you're suggesting. And I can't go any further without going into work product and other issues surrounding Miss Roberts’ representation. Q. Has Mr. Boies ever told you that he believes Miss Roberts was mistaken in her accusations against Professor Dershowitz? MR. SCAROLA: Same objection. Same instruction. MS. McCAWLEY: Same instruction. THE WITNESS: I'd like to confer with my counsel on a attorney/client privilege issue in connection with that question. MS. McCAWLEY: Can I just write down the question and -- MR. SIMPSON: I'll -- I'll rephrase it. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 00:32:20 00:32:22 00:32:25 00:32:30 00:32:37 00:32:39 00:32:39 00:32:40 00:92:45 oN MO fF WOH = 9 00:32:46 1 0 00:32:52 1 1 00:32:56 1 2 00:32:58 1 3 00:33:02 1 4 00:33:03 1 5 00:33:04 16 o0:3304 17 00:33:07 18 00:93:08 19 00:33:13 20 00:33:15, 21 00:33:19 22 00:33:19 23 00:33:19 24 00:33:21 25 00:33:22 00:33:26 00:33:27 00:33:30 00:33:34 00:33:35 00:33:37 00:33:46 00:33:53 00:33:55 oN Mm Oh ON = wo 10 00:33:58 1 1 00:34:02 1 2 00:34:07 1 3 00:34:10 1 4 00:34:12 1 5 00:34:14 1 6 00:34:16 1 7 00:34:20 1 8 00:34:23 20 00:34:26 21 00:34:30 22 00:34:34 23 00:34:37 24 00:34:40 25 186 BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. Have you ever -- I'll rephrase the question. Have you ever discussed with Mr. Boies his views as to whether or not Miss Roberts is mistaken in her allegations against Professor Dershowitz? MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. MR. SCAROLA: Same objection. Same instruction. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. Prior to December 30th of 2014, had you personally reviewed any of the flight logs that had been referred to in the testimony in this case? A. All right? Q. My only question is whether you personally reviewed them. A. Yes. Q. What flight logs have you reviewed; how would you describe them? A. Both Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 2 that were shown to Mr. Dershowitz yesterday. Q. If -- I believe those were Exhibits 6 and 7-- A. Okay. Q. — -- but can we agree that flight logs were marked as exhibits? ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 187 A. Right. The two composite exhibits of flight logs I had examined previously. Q. Okay. So the same documents that Professor Dershowitz was shown at his deposition; is that right? A. That's my recollection, yes. Q. Okay. When did you review those? A. So one of the reviews was in May 2014. There may have also been an earlier review at an earlier ~~ earlier time, but I definitely remember reviewing them in May -- approximately May 2014. Q. Would -- do you -- isn't it true that those flight logs support Professor Dershowitz's testimony that he was never on a plane with Virginia Roberts? A. No. Q. How do they not? What is -- what is the explanation for your conclusion in that regard? A. Right. We talked about this yesterday, so I'll incorporate to speed things up some of the testimony that I gave yesterday. What the flight logs showed was, to my mind, evidence of potential doctoring, evidence of -- of selective presentation of evidence. Mr. Dershowitz had presented to a law enforcement agency, at their request, apparently what I understood to be the -- the -- I understood that he had been requested by a law ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 Page 184 to 187 of 335 10/20/2015 01:08:15 PM HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010849

00:34:42 00:34:46 00:34:47 00:34:49 00:34:52 00:34:57 00:35:01 On An pA @ hw 00:35:04 @ 00:38:08 ooas0s 10 ooss11 11 coasts 12 ooss:ia 13 ooas22 14 ooas2e 15 00:38:31 16 ooss:3s 17 oo3s39 18 oo3sa1 19 oo35:45 20 oossas 24 oo3saa 22 00:35:52 23 oossss 24 oosss7 25 00:35:59 00:36:03 00:36:05 00:36:08 00:36:12 00:36:15 00:36:19 00:36:22 Oo ON A OH & WO PD «> 00:36:26 00:36.29 10 oose33 11 003638 12 003642 13 oo:3646 14 ooz64e 15 oo3600 16 003654 17 00:36:55 18 003658 19 ova703 20 oo3703 21 oos70s 22 oo37.08 23 coaz1s 24 coaris 25 188 enforcement agency to provide flight logs relevant to this investigation. And rather than providing all the flight logs that were available at that time, he appears to have provided flight logs that went from January 2005 through September 2005, knowing that he appeared on an October -- I may be off by one month here -- but on an October 2005 flight log. So that, to my mind, had indicated that Professor Dershowitz was providing selective information to law enforcement. Those concerns -- this is, you know, there's -~ there's more to it. The other problem was that the flight logs that Mr. Dershowitz had produced were inconsistent with the flight logs that Dave Rogers, one of Mr. Epstein's pilots had, so there were now inconsistencies on these flight logs. And it seemed to be -- it seemed to me to be surprising that during the period of time where Virginia Roberts was involved, Mr. Dershowitz was not appearing on those flight logs. Now, it is possible, I suppose, and that seems to be Mr. Dershowitz's position, that the reason he's not on those flight logs is that he was not on those flights. But given all of the information -- and I won't take your time this morning to go through -- all ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 189 the information I had about this international sex trafficking organization, it seemed to me that it was also possible that the sex trafficking organization, which was represented by, you know, vast resources and the ability to produce witnesses and documents and other information that would -- would cover up the existence of this organization, had gone through the flight logs and had made necessary alterations to -~- to conceal the scope of -- of the -- of the operation. In addition to that, when I started to compare the Dave Rogers' flight logs with the David -- excuse me. I am going to get a drink. When I started to compare the -- oh, I'm sorry. I should be looking at the camera. When I started -- when I started to compare the Dave Rogers’ flight logs with the Dershowitz -- which we call them the Dershowitz flight logs, which were the logs that he had produced, there were inconsistencies, and so it struck me as odd that there were these inconsistent flight logs. The other thing that I noticed is, I don't believe that Dave Rogers was the exclusive pilot for Mr. Epstein. And so I had a concern -- excuse me. I'm sorry. 1 had a concern that the flight logs that -- ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 00:37:16 00:37:20 00:37:22 00:37:25 00:37:27 00:37:32 00:37:35 00:37:37 00:37:40 00:37:42 00:37:45 00:37:48 00:37:52 00:37:54 00:37:55 00:37:56 00:37:59 00:38:02 00:38:03 00:38:03 00:38:07 00:38:08 00:38:12 00:38:16 00:38:19 00:38:22 00:38:25 00:38:25 00:38:28 00:38:31 00:38:37 00:38:38 00:38:42 00:38:45 00:38:47 00:38:49 00:38:52 00:38:54 00:38:56 00:38:59 00:39:03 00:39:05 00:39:08 00:39:13 00:39:16 00:39:20 00:39:22 00:39:26 00:39:29 00:39:31 ON Aah OH = 9 10 11 12 13 14 16 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 oOnN OO h WO RH 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 190 that covered the jet were not just the David Rogers’ flight logs, but there should be flight logs for other pilots which were not apparently being produced. And so, in light of all that, what I was seeing was a -~ a production of flight logs that was incomplete. And then I started to hear from Mr. Dershowitz that, well, these records prove conclusively I couldn't have done that. And I knew to an absolute certainty, that the records were inconsistent and inaccurate; and for somebody who had apparently carefully produced these records, to represent that these conclusively prove that he wasn't on the flights, seemed to me to be inaccurate information. So that was -- those were the kinds of things I was thinking about. Q. ‘Mr. Cassell, is it your testimony -~ MR, SIMPSON: Well, first of all, I move to strike the nonresponsive portion of the answer. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. Mr. Cassell, is it your testimony that you have sufficient information to conclude and allege that Professor Dershowitz falsified documents and gave falsified documents to a prosecuting authority? A. It is my belief that Professor Dershowitz ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 191 provided incomplete production to law enforcement agencies. Q. Is it your testimony under oath that you have sufficient information to allege that Professor Dershowitz intentionally provided false information to a prosecuting authority? A. It is my position that he provided incomplete information to a prosecuting authority and inaccurate information to a prosecuting authority. Now, as to precisely what his state of mind was when he was producing the incomplete and inaccurate information, that remains to be this -- you know, that was one of the topics that I was hoping could have been covered in -- in the depositions here in the last two days, but unfortunately, there wasn't sufficient time. Q. Let me ask it a different way. You -- you gave a long answer in which you described reasons you apparently believe that these flight logs were not merely incomplete, but that someone had false -- falsified them. And did I understand you correctly? MR. SCAROLA: Excuse me. The question that was asked was limited to the time period prior to December 30th. The answer that was given was limited to the time period prior to December 30th. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 10/20/2015 01:08:15 PM Page 188 to 191 of 335 10 of 46 sheets HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010850

00:39:32 00:39:35 00:39:38 00:39:40 00:39:43 00:39:44 00:39:44 00:40:06 00:40:06 00:40:07 00:40:09 00:40:09 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 00:40:14 13 oozes 14 00:40:21 00:40:28 00:40:34 00:40:37 00:40:39 15 16 17 18 19 00:40:40 20 00:40:40 21 00:40:44 22 00:40:48 00:40:51 00:40:52 00:40:55 00:40:55 00:40:58 00:41:00 00:41:02 00:41:05 00:41:10 00:41:14 00:41:15, 00:41:48 00:41:20 00:41:26 00:41:30 00:41:34 00:41:38 00:41:41 00:41:44 00:41:46 00:41:48 23 24 25 On Oak OND = to 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 00:41:53 20 00:41:57 21 00:42:00 22 00:42:01 23 00:42:03 24 00:42:07 11 of 46 sheets 25 192 Are you now asking for an expansion of that response to include information that's been gathered since December 30th? MR. SIMPSON: I will take your objection to the form. Can we have the question back? (Thereupon, a portion of the record was read by the reporter.) MR, SCAROLA: And I object. The question is vague and ambiguous because it fails to identify the time period about which you are inquiring. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. Mr. Cassell, as you sit here today, are you prepared, based on the information you have available to you, to assert that Professor Dershowitz intentionally provided misleading or doctored documents to a prosecuting authority? A. So based on all the information I have today? Q. Yes. A. Yes. Q. What do you base -- what is the basis for that conclusion, and include information up until today? A. All right. So, obviously, that's an open-ended question. Q. 1-- just answer the question, please, as ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 193 best you can. A. Sure. Allright. Well, let me just -- that's a lot -- there's a lot of things to get into on that. Let's start with the events of the last two days, the deposition of Mr. Dershowitz, which in my mind demonstrates repeated false statements that were made by Mr, Dershowitz. Let's begin with the overarching point about the deposition of the last two days. I've been practicing law -- law since about 1986. And in my experience, I have never seen a more evasive effort to avoid answering questions, and to essentially run out the clack so that detailed questions could not be asked by my attorney. And I witnessed over the last two days, Mr. Dershowitz was asked a series of very simple questions; where were you on this day; or what's the name; or what time, things like that, and instead of, you know, giving an -- an immediate answer, he ended up giving a very extended answer commonly punctuated with disparaging remarks that seemed to have nothing to do with answering the question. So I drew the inference from that that Mr. Dershowitz did not want to answer questions over the last two days. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 00:42:08 90:42:10 00:42:14 00:42:17 00:42:19 00:42:22 00:42:25 00:42:27 00:42:30 00:42:31 00:42:32 00:42:33 00:42:34 00:42:34 00:42:35 00:42:37 00:42:39 00:42:43 00:42:44 00:42:43 00:42:50 00:42:51 00:42:51 00:42:54 00:42:54 00:42:55 90:42:56 00:43:00 90:43:02 00:43:05 00:43:07 00:43:09 00:43:10 00:43:10 00:43:13 00:43:13 90:43:15 00:43:18 00:43:21 00:43:24 00:43:27 00:43:28 00:43:31 00:43:34 00:43:37 00:43:38 00:43:41 00:43:44 00:43:48 00:43:52 ON OO kh O&O DH 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 oOo ON OO hk WO RH = 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 194 Another thing that happened during the deposition, and I will not repeat what was said inthe deposition, because there was immediately an objection from Ms. McCawley, but there were two points in the deposition where Mr, Dershowitz made representations about what a New York Attorney David Boies would say, and I'm not going into any -- Q. 1-- I just want to say if he starts talking about it -- MS. McCAWLEY: No, I -- I object to any reference -- MR, SIMPSON: -- then I get to ask all the questions if he should say anything. MS. McCAWLEY: I think he's just acknowledging that -- I’m sorry. I think he’s acknowledging that that occurred. I object to any -- any discussion of any settlement communications in the context of that privilege. MR. SCAROLA: I don't intend to get into any settlement discussions. We are not going to repeat the substance of the objected-to testimony. MR. SIMPSON: My point, I just want it to be on notice -- MS. McCAWLEY: Yes. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 195 MR. SIMPSON: -- is if this witness starts saying anything about his communications or why he -- he's coming to a conclusion, he's putting that forth as a basis, he has opened the door. You can't put it forth and park and not let me ask for all the discussions. MR. SCAROLA: You can -- you can proceed and you know not to include privileged -- THE WITNESS: Yes. MR. SCAROLA: -- cornmunications. THE WITNESS: There was a newspaper that reported -- a Florida business newspaper that promptly after Mr. Dershowitz said that Mr. Boies had made certain representations, a Florida -- respected Florida business newspaper immediately reported that David Boies had said, that was a false statement. And In light of that, I now had David Boies saying that Mr. Dershowitz was making false statements under oath during the -- the deposition that occurred over the last two days. In addition to that, I had -- again, during the deposition, I heard Mr. Dershowitz say that Attorney Bob Josefsberg had said that -- words to the effect that he, Josefsberg, did not believe ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 Page 192 to 195 of 335 10/20/2015 01:08:15 PM HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010851

00:43:54 00:43:55 00:44:00 00:44:00 00:44:02 00:44:04 00:44:09 On OO hb WON = 00:44:08 oosat2 9 ooae17 10 ooaata 11 ooaae1 12 004425 13 00:44:20 14 cos: 15 00:44:34 16 oo-aa:37 17 oo-aa:38 18 cosaan 19 ooaaaa 20 00:44:47 21 00:44:50 22 00:44:53 23 004086 24 onaass 25 00:45:03 00:45:06 00:45:06 00:45:12 00:45:14 00:45:18 00:45:18 CON OO Rh WN = 00:45:20 iis) 00:45:23 ooas2e 10 00:45:20 14 oosssz2 12 cosas 13 cosas 14 00:45:38 15 ooas:30 16 oo-asa2 17 ooasas 18 ooasae 19 aoasso 20 oo45s1 21 00:45:52 22 ooasss 23 coasss 24 onasss 25 10/20/2015 01:08:15 PM 196 Virginia Roberts. I knew Josefsberg was an attorney who had represented Miss Roberts based on public information, and I knew that that would be a gross violation of Mr. Josefsberg's attorney/client obligations. And as a result of that, it seemed to me that, once again, Mr. Dershowitz was giving false information under oath In an effort to exculpate himself from the sex trafficking that he had been involved with. In addition to that, I learned during the deposition on Thursday that it had, quote, not crossed my mind, close quote -- I believe that's a direct quote from Mr. Dershowitz -- to record a conversation with a woman allegedly named Rebecca who had allegedly made certain statements. That was on Thursday. And then yesterday, Friday, I learned that Mr. Dershowitz, not only had it crossed his mind to make a recording, he had, in fact, made such a recording; and in fact, had it transcribed; and in fact, turned it over to his attorneys. So, once again, I had what appeared to be a false statement under oath by Mr. Dershowitz in an attempt to exculpate himself from the -- the sex ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 197 trafficking that we -- we have evidence he has been involved with. The false statements or certainly misleading statements continue. I suppose, some of these could be a matter of judgment. The -~ they raise grave concern to me. One of them was that we had propounded an interrogatory requesting the basis for Mr, Dershowitz's statements that Virginia Roberts had a criminal record. And he said that, well, she's admitted that she had sex with various people, so that renders her a criminal, and something along those lines, which I didn’t think was very accurate. But in any event, that was the answer he gave. And then I learned during the deposition in the last two days, that Mr. Dershowitz had received information that he says shows that Virginia Roberts had stolen money from a restaurant and had been criminally charged with that, That was not produced to us during discovery, even though it would have been obviously relevant, and it was directly called for in the discovery that we were provided with. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 90:46:02 00:46:05 00:46:10 90:46:10 00:46:12 00:46:12 00:46:15 SON OO Rh WD = 00:45:16 @ 00:46:17 00:46:20 10 00:46:24 11 00:46:23 12 00:46:27 13 oose27 14 00:46:28 15 00:46:29 16 ooaea2 17 00:46:34 18 00:46:35 19 oossaz 20 00:46:46 21 00:46:50 22 90:46:52 23 00:46:55 24 00:46:59 25 00:47:02 00:47:05 00:47:07 00:47:11 00:47:14 00:47:47 00:47:20 oN OO bh WN = 00:47:21 @ 00:47:25 00:47:28 10 ooa7an 11 ooa734 12 00.4737 13 ooa7a1 14 ooaraa 15 coarse 16 ooaras 17 ova7s2 18 coarse 19 coarse 20 ooas02 21 ooas0s 22 00:48:08 2d ooaars 24 ooas1a 2D Page 196 to 199 of 335 198 You know, I also have -- I would like to refresh my recollection and if ~~ if counsel -- that's -- MR. SCAROLA: You can refresh your recollection on anything you need to. THE WITNESS: All right. I'd like to refresh my recollection by looking at -- MR. SIMPSON: Actually, I -~ I object to this answer as nonresponsive. I haven't heard anything about flight logs once. MR. SCAROLA: You can continue. THE WITNESS: These -- you know, these all go to the statements. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. You're looking at a document? A. Yeah. Let's mark it as an exhibit if you'd like. This is a memory aid to me. Q. Did you prepare it? A. Yes, I did. All right. Let's see. At page 114 of a rough transcript that I saw prepared of Thursday's testimony, Mr. Dershowitz was asked. Quote: You know that Virginia Roberts is not the only person who has sworn under oath that you were present at Jeffrey Epstein's Palm Beach home with young girls, right? Answer: No. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 199 That seemed to me to be false or at the very least misleading testimony given that Mr. Dershowitz knew that Juan Alessi, among potentially other people, had identified him as having been in the presence of Jeffrey Epstein and young girls at the Florida mansion and, indeed, had identified a photograph of Virginia Roberts, At page 164 of the transcript, Mr. Dershowitz was asked, quote: All of the manifests that have been produced in this litigation, the ones that you say corroborate your testimony and exonerate you, demonstrate that you never flew on Jeffrey Epstein's plane in the company of your wife, correct? Answer: No, that's not true. I don't know that. And, again, in the context of this litigation where the flight logs have been, as this question that I'm answering tends to show, are so central for Mr. Dershowitz to testify under oath that he didn't know whether his wife was depicted on the flight log, struck me as, at the very least, misleading information, but I concluded in my opinion was actually deliberately false information, particularly, given this litigation where he has produced, not only his own personal travel record, but all of his wife's travel records for the relevant period of time. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 12 of 46 sheets HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010852

00:48:15 00:48:19 00:48:22 00:48:26 00:48:27 00:48:29 00:48:32 On Oak WD = 00:48:35 @ 00:48:38 00:48:42 10 onaaas 14 cosas 12 00:48:52 13 00:48:56 14 00:48:59 15 ooagor 16 00:49:05 17 oo.aa0s 18 oo-as-to 19 oosor2 20 00:49:13 21 0041s 22 onae:20 23 oo-ss23 24 00:49:26 25 00:49:33 00:49:36 00:49:39 00:49:41 00:49:43 00:49:47 00:49:50 On On & WD 00:49:53 @ 00:49:56 oososs 10 onso01 14 oosooa 12 ooso07 13 coso10 14 00:50:14 15 ooso17 16 o0s020 17 005022 18 oos0.28 19 ooso28 20 00:50:29 21 oosos1 22 00:50:34 23 00:50:35 24 00:50:39 25 13 of 46 sheets 200 So I thought that was, again, a deliberate faise statement under oath designed to exculpate him from his criminal involvement in this international sex trafficking ring. At another point in the transcript, he was asked, quote, -- no, I'm sorry. He stated, quote: I challenge you to find any statement where I said I have never traveled outside the presence of my wife, close quote, representing that there would be no such statement there, when, in fact, I'm aware of an American Lawyer quotation attributed to him from January 15th, 2015, quote: I've been married to the same woman for 28 years. She goes with me everywhere, close quote. And, again, you know, this -- I understand sometimes people may go away from their wife, but the American Lawyer was, obviously, on January 15th, 2015, asking about: Well, have you been outside the presence of your wife in situations where you might have interacted with Virginia Roberts? And that was the answer that he gave to the American Lawyer. And based on -- on my review of the flight fogs, I thought that was, again, a deliberate effort to obscure and try to exculpate himself from his involvement in this International sex trafficking ring. The -- he also said yesterday: Nobody knows ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 204 about Prince Andrew and Virginia, except for the two of them. And, again, I thought that was at a minimum, deliberately mis -- misleading information and more likely deliberately false information, because Mr. Dershowitz was aware of the photograph and had long been aware of the photograph that shows Prince Andrew with his arm around Virginia Roberts, standing next to a beaming Glenn Maxwell who has been involved in this international sex trafficking organization. And in the circumstances of that photograph, it seems quite likely that the photographer who took that picture was the head of the international sex trafficking ring, Jeffrey Epstein. And so for him to say that only two people knew what went on was, again, deliberately faise information, because I know he is the attorney for Jeffrey Epstein, and he could have asserted attorney/client privilege over that, said, I can't get into my communications with my client about what he was doing with Prince Andrew. But instead he said, no one knows what happened, other than those two people in circumstances where it was quite clear that there would have been others who would have been aware of that. Now, the question is: Why do I think the -- the -- you know, there are inaccuracies in the flight ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 00:50:41 00:50:45 00:50:49 00:50:51 00:50:54 00:50:58 00:51:04 00:51:03 00:51:04 On AOA WH = 9 oos106 10 oostos 11 os 12 oos114 13 oosi7 14 costa 15 oos122 16 oos125 17 oo51.29 18 oos1:32 19 oosts4 20 oos137 24 oot 22 005142 23 costs 24 005147 25 00:51:50 00:51:52 00:51:54 00:51:55 00:51:57 00:54:59 00:52:03 00:52:03 60:52:05 On Oak Gh = 9 00:52:08 1 0 00:52:10 1 1 00:52:13 1 2 00:52:15 1 3 00:52:18 1 4 00:52:20 1 5 00:52:23 1 6 00:52:25 1 7 00:52:27 1 8 00:52:34 1 9 00:52:34 20 00:52:36 21 00:52:36 22 00:52:36 23 00:52:59 24 00:53:00 25 Page 200 to 203 of 335 202 logs. And I could refresh my recollection here by looking at, I think it's docket entry 291 of our pleading that we presented on January 21st to Judge Marra where we provided specific itemized examples of inconsistencies between the Dave Rogers’ flight log and the -- again, I'll call it, the Alan Dershowitz flight log, which was a selected presentation of flight log information, And when you see those inconsistencies, it becomes very hard to believe that all of the information that was provided in those flight logs was accurate. So when I take all of that information, put it together, I believe that there's sufficient -- I have a sufficient basis for believing at this point in time, that Mr. Dershowitz has, indeed, provided inaccurate information to -- to law enforcement agencies, or at a minimum has provided -- has produced inaccurate information through circumstances beyond his control. But when he continually represents that the information is accurate and exonerates him, I believe that that is a deliberately false statement. MR. SIMPSON: Move to strike the answer -- the nonresponsive portion of the answer. MR. SCAROLA: Which portion is that? MR. SIMPSON: 99 percent of it. I think at ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 203 the end, we got to the flight logs. I move to strike the nonresponsive portion. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. Mr. Cassell, you came here today looking for an opportunity to give that statement; did you not? A. If it was relevant to an answer I was giving, yes. Q. The answer to my question is, yes, you came here today looking for a question to which you could respond with that prepared statement? A. Iwas prepared to give that -- I anticipated that a very good attorney for Mr. Dershowitz might ask a question where that would be relevant. And if that question were asked and I was given the opportunity to make that statement, I wanted to be prepared to give it in the most accurate way that I could. MR. SIMPSON: I would like the reporter to mark as Exhibit -- are we up to 4 ~- Exhibit 4, the document that Mr. Cassell was referring to. lil fet the reporter do that. THE WITNESS: Okay. (Casseil's 1.D. Exhibit No. 4 - document produced by the witness was marked for identification.) MR. SIMPSON: I just want to make that part of the record. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 10/20/2015 01:08:15 PM HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010853

00:63:00 00:53:02 00:53:07 00:53:10 00:53:12 00:53:12 00:53:28 SON Oa RON a 00:53:30 @ 00:59:34 00:53:34 10 oosa.34 14 oos330 12 oosa30 13 oosaso 14 005343 15 oos347 16 oos3a7 17 005347 18 oosas2 19 oossss 20 oosas7 21 00:53:57 22 oose0t 23 oosaos 24 cosas 25 00:54:17 00:54:20 00:54:23 0:54:25 00:54:27 00:54:29 00:54:32 ON Ooh WD = 00:54:34 @ 00:54:37 00:54:37 41 0 00:54:39 1 1 00:54:39 12 005439 13 oosaat 14 oosaas 15 cosas 16 oosaa7 17 oo5a4a 18 oosas1 19 oos4ss 20 oos4ss 21 oosase 22 00:58:02 23 o0ss0 24 ooss08 25 10/20/2015 01:08:15 PM 204 BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. Before Wednesday of this week, you had none of the information that you just described about Professor Dershowitz's testimony, correct? A. Correct. Q. I'm trying to look at my notes here of your long answer, but one thing you indicated that -- was the fact that Professor Dershowitz gave long answers is somehow indicative of false answers or perjury -- MR. SCAROLA: That is -- BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. -- is that right? MR. SCAROLA: That is an absolute mischaracterization of the statement that Professor Cassell made. He did not refer to the length of the answers, but rather their nonresponsiveness. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. Let me -- let me ask a different question. Go back to the flight logs themselves. A. Okay. Q. My initial question that got us going down this line was: Isn't it true that the flight logs themselves support Professor Dershowitz's testimony that he was never on a plane with Virginia Roberts, the face ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 205 of the flight logs support that proposition? A. The face of the flight logs for the relevant period of time, we can call it the hot period of time or whatever you want, did not reveal the presence of Mr. Dershowitz on those flights, yes. Q. Okay. So during the period -- well, actually, there's no flight log that shows Virginia Roberts and Professor Dershowitz on the same airplane, correct? A. That's my understanding, yes. QQ. And -- MR. SCAROLA: By name. You're -- you're -- MS. McCAWLEY: And it -~ MR. SCAROLA: -- asking whether she was there identified by name? BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. To your knowledge, isn't it correct that there is no flight log that's been produced in this case by any party that reflects Professor Dershowitz and Virginia Roberts on the same plane, as you read the flight log? MR. SCAROLA: I'm sorry. Are you asking whether those same names appear on the flight log together? MR. SIMPSON: My question, I think, is ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 00.55:08 00:55:08 0:55:08 00:55:11 00:55:12 00:55:12 00:55:14 On OO mh & bh «a 00:55:15, 00:55:17 9 00:55:21 1 0 00:55:23 1 1 00:55:24 1 2 00:55:26 1 3 00:55:33 1 4 00:55:39 1 5 oossaa 16 00:55:47 1 7 00:55:50 1 8 00:55:54 1 9 00:55:58 20 90:56:02 21 00:56:03 22 00:56:04 23 00:56:08 24 00:56:08 25 00:56:08 00:56:11 00:56:14 00:56:17 00:56:19 00:56:21 00:56:22 ON Oah @ ND = 00:56:24 @ 00:56:25 vose2e 10 vose20 11 0086.32 12 ovse3s 13 oosess 14 ooseso 15 oo:s6s7 16 oos70s 17 oos710 18 oos713 19 oos714 20 oos7ts 21 oos7-16 22 oos716 2S oos719 24 00:57:20 25 Page 204 to 207 of 335 206 perfectly clear. BY MR, SIMPSON: Q. My question, Mr. Cassell, is: You reviewed the flight logs, correct? A. Correct. Q. You reviewed them in some detail, correct? A. Correct. Q. Is there any entry on those flight lines -- logs that you read as putting Professor Dershowitz and Miss Roberts on the same plane? A. No. Q. And so your testimony about questions about the completeness and accuracy of those flight logs goes to whether the logs are -- let me rephrase that. The answer that you gave about your question as -- your views as to the completeness of the flight logs and whether they may have been changed in some ways, goes to whether those logs are conclusive, not whether they, in fact, support Professor Dershowitz's testimony that he was not on a plane with Virginia Roberts? MR. SCAROLA: I'm going to object to the form of the question as vague and ambiguous. I don't understand it. THE WITNESS: And I won't give a long answer, ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (8954) 331-4400 207 but I -- I think, as I previously indicated, you can't just look at the face of these documents without -- with -- you know, against the context of an international sex trafficking ring that's trying to cover up what it's doing. You can't just look and documents and assume that they are 100 percent accurate without that -- having that context in mind. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. Andso am I right, that on the face of the flight logs, there's nothing showing Virginia Roberts and Professor Dershowitz on the same plane? A. That's correct. Q. And -- goon. And so doI understand correctly that your position is that the flight logs may not be complete or may have been changed, but you do not dispute, that on their face, they support Professor Dershowitz's testimony? MR. SCAROLA: Objection. MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. MR. SCAROLA: Compound. THE WITNESS: Could you just aggregate that? BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. You follow the objections very well. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 14 of 46 sheets HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010854

00:57:22 00:57:22 00:57:22 00:57:23 00:57:23 00:57:25 00:57:25 On Oa hb wWHN = 00:57:27 @ 00:87:27 oos731 10 oos7as 11 00:57:40 12 00:57:43 13 00:57:43 14 oos7as 15 00:57:48 16 costa 17 00:57:48 18 cos7so 19 00:57:52 20 oos7s3 21 00:57:56 22 008759 23 00:58:04 24 oo:se06 25 00:58:09 00:58:09 00:58:10 00:58:12 00:58:12 00:58:34 00:58:34 AN OO kh WN = 00:58:34 <o] 00:58:33 00:58:33 10 oosesa 14 oosess 12 ooseas 13 oosa3e 14 oosese 15 oose42 16 ooseaa 17 ooseaa 18 cosa? 19 oo:s8:50 20 ooses1 21 005854 22 005857 23 00:93:03 24 co:se08 25 15 of 46 sheets 208 A. I was thinking of that as well. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. Let me -- A. Iwasn't -- Q. Let me -- A. -- following their answer. Q. Let me -- let me just ask a different question, A. Sure. Thanks. Q. You testified that you have -- at some length, about why you question the accuracy of the flight logs, correct? A. Correct. Q. But I may be redundant, but you don't question that what they show on their face supports Professor Dershowitz's testimony -- MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q.__-- that he was not on a plane with Virginia Roberts? A. The -- you know, the -- the sex trafficking ring run by Jeffrey Epstein has produced Epstein flight logs that appear to show that -- that Dershowitz and Virginia Roberts are not on the plane, so... Q. So the answer to my question is, yes? ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 MR. SCAROLA: I'm sorry. THE WITNESS: Which question now? MR. SIMPSON: The question you just -- could you read back my -- my question and the answer? BY MR, SIMPSON: Q. Let me ask it again. . Okay. » That's fine. I mean, I thought I was -- MR. SCAROLA: There's no question pending. THE WITNESS: I'm sorry. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. What were you about to say? A. Iwas about to say that the records that they produced ~-- I'm -- I'm sorry... Q. The records -- the records that were produced -- A. On-- on their face, I cannot give youa flight log that has Virginia Roberts and Alan Dershowitz sitting next to each other, yes. Q. And you also -- you also testified a moment ago that Professor Dershowitz in his testimony in the last couple of days, had testified that Virginia Roberts had been arrested for stealing cash; do you refer -- do you recall that? ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 00:59:08 00:59:10 00:59:14 00:59:16 00:59:47 60:59:20 00:58:23 ONO ah WN = 00:89:24 oos927 «9 ooso31 10 ooso:34 11 oos40 12 ooseas 13 oosea7 14 oo-so-4a 15 00:59:49 16 oose:s2 17 00:59:55 18 00:59:58 19 or:00.01 20 or0003 21 oror04 22 or0007 23 01:00:14 24 ovo013 25 04:00:14 01:00:16 04:00:17 01:00:18 01:00:20 04:00:21 01:00:21 On oO ah WN 01:00:23 @ 01:00:25 or:00:27 10 oroo23 14 or0032 12 ors 13 otoo3s 14 ovooar 15 evooae 16 ovo 17 orooas 18 or0048 19 or0049 20 overs: 24 or00ss 22 or00ss 23 orooss 24 01:01:00 25 Page 208 to 211 of 335 210 A. LIrecall his testimony to that effect, yes. Q. And you testified that no support for that had been produced in discovery; is that correct? A. That's my understanding, yes. Q. Isn't it true that in Mr. Alessi's deposition, he describes that under oath and says that it happened? A. Idon't have a recollection of criminal charges having been discussed in the Alessi deposition. Q. Is it -- well, let me -- let me ask you: Is it your testimony that you understood that, in fact, Miss Roberts had been accused of stealing money from her employer? MS. McCAWLEY: I'm going to object to the extent it gets into any conversations that you had with Virginia on any of these issues. THE WITNESS: Yeah, I'm trying to -- if your question is about the Alessi depo, I don't -- don't immediately recall him discussing -~- discussing them. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. If lrepresent to you that Mr. Alessi, in his deposition, referred to a police report and an arrest of Miss Roberts, do you have any reason to question that? MR, SCAROLA: Could we -- could we pull out ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 211 the deposition? And if you have got a reference in the deposition, let's take a look at it. MR, SIMPSON: I'm just asking for his recollection right now. The document will speak for itself. But I want to -- MR. SCAROLA: Yes, it will. MR. SIMPSON: He -- he made a very serious accusation. I would like to get an answer to my question. Does he recall whether, in that deposition that all the parties in this case have, Mr. Alessi said under oath, that she had been arrested and charged with stealing from her employer. THE WITNESS: When you -- the question built in a serious accusation, the -- the -- the -- the statement I was making is that we had propounded an interrogatory to Mr. Dershowitz saying: What's the basis for your assertion that Miss Roberts had a criminal record? And that answer didn't refer to an Alessi depo. If it -- this is one of the problems that I'm having. When -- when -- you know, when you come into a deposition, both sides are supposed to turn everything over, And then if I get a question about, well, what if -~ you know, we're relying ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 10/20/2015 01:08:15 PM HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010855

01:01:01 01:01:03 01:01:05. 04:04:07 04:01:10 01:04:14 01:01:11 On naankr WN Of:09:12 0F:09:18 9 04:01:24 10 81:01:23 1 1 04:01:23 12 01:04:23 13 04:01:24 14 04:01:25 15 04:01:26 16 01:01:26 17 01:01:27 18 04:04:32 19 04:01:36 20 01:01:41 21 04:01:44 22 01:04:46 23 01:01:46 24 01:01:50 25 01:01:53 94:01:55 81:01:58 81:02:01 01:02:05 01:02:09 01:02:09 On OO Oh WN «a 04:02:11 @ 01:02:12 oroz12 10 oroas3 11 ores 12 oto217 13 or0217 14 01:02:18 15 ooze 16 oro221 17 oroz2s 18 01:02:27 19 o1:02:30 20 ot:0232 24 010234 22 01:02:34 23 o10237 24 ororas 25 212 on this piece of the Alessi depo and it's not in the answers to interrogatories, it's hard for me to -- to give an answer to that. So -- so that's the -- that's the concern I have. MR. SIMPSON: I move -- I move to strike as nonresponsive. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. My question went to whether -- let me back up. If -- if I'm -- unless I misunderstood you -- MR. SCAROLA: The question was: Did he recall the contents -- MR. SIMPSON: I'm asking the question. MR. SCAROLA: -- of the Alessi deposition, MR. SIMPSON: I'm withdrawing it. I will ask a new question. MR. SCAROLA: BY MR, SIMPSON: Q. LI understood you in your -- the long answer that you gave a while ago to suggest that Professor Dershowitz had either testified falsely or failed to Okay. Thank you. provide relevant information on which he was basing his testimony about Miss Roberts's arrest; is that right? A. Yes. Q. And that assertion would be incorrect if there's a deposition in this case that all the parties ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 213 have that include that information? MR, SCAROLA: Mr. Simpson, there was an express reference to an answer to interrogatory, and the absence of any reference to an arrest for theft in your client's sworn answer to interrogatory. That's -- MR. SIMPSON: We -- we -- MR. SCAROLA: -- exactly what the testimony was. MR. SIMPSON: If you object to the form, please just object to the form. I think it's a proper question -- MR. SCAROLA: I -- I object -- MR, SIMPSON: -- in our discovery response. MR. SCAROLA: -~ I object to your misrepresentation of the earlier testimony. I'm sure it was not intentional, and that's why I'm calling it to your attention so that we don't go down a rabbit trail. MR. SIMPSON: I'm not going down any rabbit trail. I'm really -- objection to the form will preserve it. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. My question is whether you were aware at the time that Professor Dershowitz testified that, in fact, ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 01:02:48 01:02:54 01:02:57 81:03:00 04:03:01 81:03:04 81;03:05 On OO Rh WN wa 01:03:06 oros1s 9 ot0317 10 orosts 11 oros1e 12 oto321 13 010322 14 ose: 15 orsso1 16 011528 17 04:15:30 18 orts34 19 ois3a 20 ortsss 21 011538 22 ots 23 o1:1542 24 01:15:44 25 04:15:45 41 01:15:49 2 04:15:50 3 ontss: 4 01:16:51 5 01:16:53 6 09:15:54 7 04:15:56 8 01:15:56 9 onsss 10 81:16:02 11 01:16:02 12 01:16:02 13 01:16:06 14 04:16:08 15 04:16:08 16 04:16:12 17 01:16:15 18 041627 19 04:16:23 20 011625, 21 01:16:26 22 01:16:33 23 otess 24 orteaa 25 214 Mr. Alessi had also testified previously about the arrest of Miss Roberts for stealing from her employer? A. I didn't recall that. If that's in there, you're -- you're making a representation, and I know you're a fine lawyer, so I'll accept your representation. I didn't recall that when he was testifying a -- a day or two ago on that subject. MR. SCAROLA: We have been going for about an hour. Is it time to take a break? Is that convenient for you? MR. SIMPSON: We can take a break now. THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are going off the video record, 9:35 a.m. (Thereupon, a recess was taken.) THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are back on the video record, 9:47 a.m. THE WITNESS: I need to take two minutes, if I may, and just supplement the long answer that I gave about the series of things. By looking over my checklist, I noticed that item 5 of the 12 items was not given during my testimony. I'm -- BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. I don't -- I'm not going to ask about item 5. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 215 It's in the record as part of your -- your -- your -- A. Iwould like to just supplement -- MR. SCAROLA: That's fine. That's fine. If you don't want to hear it, that's okay. THE WITNESS: I'd like -- MR. SCAROLA: Just as long as it’s noted that there was an inadvertent omission. THE WITNESS: Yeah. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q._ As part of -- I'm going to go back actually to -- A. Sure. Q. -- the questions I was asking. One question about the -- the flight logs again. A. Okay. Q. It's true, is it not, that you have no personal knowledge as to whether Professor Dershowitz or some other member of Jeffrey Epstein's defense team prepared those logs for production to the government? A. I don't have personal knowledge of -- of that, that's right. Q. And you would agree, would you not, that it's the duty of a defense counsel to represent a client zealously within the bounds of the law, correct? A. Correct. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 10/20/2015 01:08:15 PM Page 212 to 215 of 335 16 of 46 sheets HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010856