01:16:44 01:16:44 01:16:47 01:16:48 01:16:48 01:16:52 01:16:57 aOnN On ht @ NH = 01:17:00 ones 9 orszos 10 01:17:09 11 ort709 12 oz 13 ON17:14 14 01:17:16 15 aizas 16 orss 17 ore 18 ovtz27 19 orvir31 20 ot-r704 21 oin7as 22 o1730 23 ona 24 oniras 25 04:17:46 04:97:55 01:17:58 01:18:01 01:18:04 01:18:04 01:18:06 On Doak ON = 01:18:08 @ 04:48:18 orssz2 10 orte23 11 orta2s 12 ortas1 13 o1ta32 14 ortass 15 ortas1 16 ortsas 17 ontass 18 ortoo3 19 01:19:07 20 01:19:09 21 orro1s 22 01:19:15, 23 arias 24 orto1s 25 17 of 46 sheets lines, correct? A. That's right. with the law; is that correct? Q. And so you wouldn't -- Attorneys cannot make, for example, false things. with the law and legal ethics, correct? A. That's correct. would have been acting unethically, correct? A. That's correct. negative about an attorney because the attorney represented someone accused of heinous crimes? Q. Yes. everyone is entitled to a defense. reviewed the Palm Beach Police report? A. Portions of it, yes. think I've gone through it page by page. Q. When did you do that? report here with -- I don't know if I can... anything. 216 218 Q. In fact, I think you testified yesterday ovtore 1 MS. McCAWLEY: The location is fine. about your duty with respect to Miss Roberts along those ovia20 2 THE WITNESS: The location, once on922 38 personaily -- once here in Florida, and then in oii925 4 my office in -- while in Salt Lake City. Q. And so with respect to Professor Dershowitz's ovte28 § BY MR. SIMPSON: representation of Jeffrey Epstein, he would have been ovis2. §=§ Q. And are you able to place in time when you acting unethically if he didn't attempt to negotiate the orie22 YF reviewed these portions of the police report, other than best resolution for his client that he could, consistent o19:35 8 before December 30th of 2014? oria37 9 A. Not precisely, no. A. Right. Consistent with the law, yes. orts40 10 Q. And do I understand correctly from your extea2 11° testimony yesterday that that police report is one of A. I'msorry. Let me just -- consistent with o1ie47 12 the things you relied on to support making the the law and with the ethical obligations of attorneys. oi9s1 13 allegations against Professor Dershowitz that are ovtas4 14 included in the joinder motion? representations when they are negotiating those kinds of | o11956 15 A. That's right. ortoss 16 Q. It's also true, is it not, that that police Q. Right. The duty as a defense counsel, 012001 17 report includes an interview with an adult woman who was Professor Dershowitz's duty was to attempt to obtain the 012007 18 retained to provide massages at Jeffrey Epstein's best resolution he could for Jeffrey Epstein consistent or2011 19 residence for guests, among others; isn't that correct? or201 20 A. I believe that's correct. orzore 21 Q. And based on that, is it your testimony that Q. And, in fact, if he had not done that, he 012020 22 it's fair to presume that a reference that a guest got a 012024 23 massage is a code word for abusing a minor sexually? o120:31 24 MR. SCAROLA: I'm sorry. Are you -~ are you Q. And would you agree that it would be 012033 25 isolating -- ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 (954) 331-4400 217 219 inappropriate, totally inappropriate, to infer anything 012033 41 MR. SIMPSON: I don't -- I don't wanta 012034 2 speech, Mr. Scarola. If you object to the form, o12036 3 object to the form, and I -- if it's not a proper A. Just the fact of representation alone? or2038 4 question -- or2038 | & MR. SCAROLA: I want a clarification of the A. Yeah, that's right. Sure, of course, orzo3e «6 question, please. Are you isolating only that o12030 «7 piece -- Q. As -- before December 30th of 2014, had you or2039 8 MR. SIMPSON: I -- the question -- or2041 9 MR. SCAROLA: -- of information? or2042 10 MR. SIMPSON: I'm -- Iam asking a question Q. Had you reviewed the entire report? orzoas 14 that's perfectly clear. If you think it's A. I think I reviewed most of it, but I don't orz0s6 12 objectionable, it won't ~~ it will stand. or2049 13 MR. SCAROLA: I'm going to object on the or20s0 14 basis that it is vague and ambiguous. It is A. Well, let's see. Before December 30th, 2014, or20s3 15 unclear whether you're asking for him -- Brad and I filed the case in about July 2008, so it was or2055 16 MR. SIMPSON: Please don't coach the witness. about a six-year period of time, and I remember I'd been | 12056 17 MR. SCAROLA: -- to isolate -- to isolate his to Florida a couple of times on this case, once in 2010 012050 18 focus to that single piece of evidence. and I think another a year or two later. And I 012059 19 MR. SIMPSON: I object on the coaching of the remember, at least on one of those times, reviewing the or2101 20 witness. o1:2101 21 BY MR. SIMPSON: MS. McCAWLEY: Yeah. I wouldn't go into or2t02 22 Q. My questionis: Is it reasonable, otzi06 23 considering that the police report on its face shows THE WITNESS: To the -- right. So we just -- o12111 24 evidence -- let me back this up. Ask another question or2i1e 25 to you. we just want to know -- ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 Page 216 to 219 of 335 ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 10/20/2015 01:08:15 PM HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010857

O26 O121:21 0:21:24 04:21:28 01:21:28 01:21:32 01:21:34 On DA & WH a 04:21:37 @ O124:41 O42 1:45 1 0 04:21:50 1 1 01;/21:54 1 2 Ot: 21:57 1 3 01:22:01 1 4 o122.06 15 01:22:08 1 6 04:22:13 1 7 01:22:14 1 8 01:22:18 1 93 04:22:21 20 04:22:25 21 01:22:26 22 04:22:27 23 01:22:29 24 01:22:31 25 01:22:33 01:22:33 04:22:35 01:22:36 01:22:38 01:22:41 04:22:44 On Dm th Wh = Ot22:47 @ 01:22:51 or2253 10 or2se 14 orzss 12 or22s9 13 01:23:01 14 01:23:04 15 or230s 16 01:2307 17 or2st2 18 or2314 19 or2317 20 012320 24 012322 22 012323 23 o2326 24 012330 25 10/20/2015 01:08:15 PM 220 Are you aware that the police report reflects that the woman I referred to who was hired to give massages, told them that she never touched anyone inappropriately? A. LIthink that there are -- there is information along those lines in the police report, yes. Q. Okay. And so do you acknowledge that the police report, on its face, reflects both reports of massages that involved improper sexual contact -- contact and massages that were perfectly legitimate? A. Yes, but not in the same proportion. Q. My question wasn't proportion. The -- the report on its face, you understood, reflected that there were massages given at Mr. Epstein's residence that were perfectly legitimate? A. Some -- it was basically a few isolated examples from what I could see, Q. So you would characterize what was said in the police report as "a few isolated examples"? A. Well, given the backdrop that they had -- Q. No. My question -- it's a yes or no question. Is that how you would characterize it? MR. SCAROLA: Excuse me. The witness is not confined to answering yes or no, if yes or no would be misleading. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 221 BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. It's a different position than was taken previously, but -- A. Imean, I was just going to give one sentence, and the one sentence would be, in the context of this whole police report where they had 24, approximately, minor girls who were -- who were being sexually abused, the references to legitimate massages I would view as isolated. Q. So you're coming to the conclusion, looking at the police report, that they are isolated; is that right? A. Yes. Q. And do you think a fair-minded reader of the police report would reach that conclusion? A. Absolutely. Q. And were you aware that the police report, to give a bit more detail, reflected that a woman who was described as having tattoos was hired to give deep-tissue Swedish massages. Do you recall that being in the -- in the police report? A. Something along those lines, yes. Q. And she also -- that woman also told the police that she was not Jeffrey Epstein's type, that she wasn't thin, had tattoos, didn't fit his type? ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 01:23:34 01:23:37 01:23:40 01:23:40 01:23:42 01:23:44 01:23:47 01:23:50 01:23:54 01:23:57 01:23:58 04:24:01 04:24:01 01:24:04 01:24:04 01:24:05 01:24:07 01:24:09 01:24:09 Ot:24:11 01:24:14 04:24:15 01:24:18 01:24:19 01:24:24 04:24:25 01:24:25 01:24:31 04:24:31 01:24:34 04:24:35 01:24:41 01:24:49 01:24:54 04:25:04 04:25:07 01:26:13 01:25:16 04:25:18 01:25:21 01:25:22 01:25:26 01:25:30 01:25:32 04:26:36 01:25:38 04:25:42 01:25:45 04:25:47 01:26:03 ON OD OH & WwW Dh <a 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 On OD Om WD = @ 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 222 A. That sounds accurate with the information I have, yes, she doesn't sound like she would fit his type. Q. And so do you agree with me then -- A. And she's over the age of 18, which is another reason why wouldn't fit his type, so... Q. But you acknowledge that -- that this woman -- that the police report reflects a woman over -- well over the age of 18, being hired to give perfectly legitimate massages, correct? A. Yeah. That was cover for the sex trafficking that was going on. Q. Okay. So you're now -- does the police report say "it was cover" -- A. That was -- QQ. -- "for the sex trafficking"? A. That was my conclusion when I reviewed the materials. Q. Okay. So your inclusion is that a fair-minded reader of the police report would come to that conclusion? A. December 30th of 2014, knowing what we know now, yes. Q. Do you consider yourself a very suspicious person? ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 223 A. No. Q. Do you consider yourself a conspira -- having a conspiratorial view? A. Absolutely not. Q. Do you consider yourself a crusader? A. Well, crusader for justice, I would say, yes. Q. If -- let me put it this way: In your view, is evidence that a person, any person, any guest at Mr. Epstein's house had a massage, evidence that that person engaged in criminal sexual conduct, contact with minors, because of the fact of having a massage? A. You'd have to look at the context. Q. On its own, is it any evidence -- doesn't it -- is it any evidence at all, in your view? A. It would be some evidence, yes. Q. Notwithstanding that the report, on its face, reflects both legitimate and illegitimate massages? A. The report on its face, let's be clear, reflects a lot of illegitimate sag -- massages anda sporadic or isolated, you know, legitimate massages. So the fact that somebody gets a massage in that context, I-- I think is -- is -- raises, you know, the concerns we have been talking about. Q. Did you, before December 30th of 2014, yourself personally, review what I think you referred to ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 Page 220 to 223 of 335 18 of 46 sheets HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010858

04:26:07 01:26:12 01:26:17 04:26:18 04:26:21 01:26:21 01:26:25 01:26:28 01:26:33 04:26:39 01:26:41 04:26:44 Of: 26:47 01:26:51 01:26:54 01:26:58 01:27:00 ON OA PR WN | @ 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 01:27:02 1 8 01:27:05 19 04:27:08 20 or270s 21 ora 22 01:27:15 23 oars 24 are 25 01:27:20 01:27:24 04:27:26 01:27:28 01:27:32 04:27:37 01:27:41 01:27:44 01:27:46 01:27:48 04:27:51 01:27:54 01:27:55 01:27:59 01:28:01 01:28:02 01:28:02 01:28:06 01:28:09 01:28:10 01:28:13 01:28:15 01:28:22 01:28:25 01:28:29 On Oo Ah O&O ND = 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 224 226 in your testimony yesterday as the holy grail, an or2820 «1 Q. Would it be a reasonable inference, or a address book of Mr. Epstein? 12838 2 possible reasonable inference to draw, that A. Pieces of it, yes. 012830 3 Mr. Rodriguez was trying to highlight people who would Q. Did you review the entire document? 012042 4 be of interest to the Press for purposes of selling the A. No. or2eas 5 book? Q. Did I understand yesterday that you orzes6 6 A. No, because he was not talking to the Press. testified -- did I understand correctly yesterday, that oz 7 He was talking to an FBI agent who had busted him for you testified that the fact that names were circled 2852 8 criminal activity. And so I was assuming that what he indicated that those persons likely engaged in illegal ovzess 9 was trying to do, as many criminals do when they are sexual contact with minors? orzess 10 apprehended, was give information to law enforcement A. My-- my impression is the names that were 012001 11 agency that would be helpful so that they can catch circled were circled by Alfredo Rodriguez when he was o1z003 12 other "bigger fishes" is the phrase that's sometimes busted by the FBI for involvement, and he was asked to o12006 13 used, so that the little fish would -- would get off or identify those who would have information about the sex | 0120.00 14 get a cooperation deal from the law enforcement agency. trafficking organization. And my -- based on all the or2a12 15 He was talking -- let's be clear. He was evidence I have, I believe the names that were circled o2014 16 talking to somebody he understood was an FBI agent at were those who would have that kind of information. o2017 17 the time, and so that was the context of the Q. So is it your testimony that if the name is o12018 18 conversation. circled, it indicates that they have information, or o12a19 19 Q. Do you have any personal knowledge that it's that they are criminals? or2022 20 in the context of talking to the FBI that Mr. Rodriguez A. That they would have information about the 0129.25 21 circled those names? sex trafficking organization, and that would probably o1202 22 A. Ihave reviewed -- I know I could refresh my mean that they were part of the organization. It may o12930 23 +~recollection here, but there's an FBI 302, a report of mean that they were witnesses to what the organization | 012923 24 interview of the circumstances surrounding was doing. ot2933 25 Mr. Rodriguez's arrest, and I believe I reviewed that ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 (954) 331-4400 225 227 But they would have information that the FBI, o2e3e 1 302. among other law enforcement agencies, should be orzes9 «2 Q. Do you know whether the FBI, at any point, following up on, if they are trying to piece together o12047 3 contacted Professor Dershowitz to discuss any evidence what the sex trafficking organization was doing. 012953 4 he might have after his name was circled on this Q. Would you agree that a fair-minded person, otzess § document? with that background that you just described, would not otaes7 6 A. Idon't have personal knowledge of what the go to the conclusion that the fact that a name is or20s0 7 FBI did to follow up after that. circled indicates that that person has engaged in or3001 § Q. Okay. One of the names that's circled in the criminal conduct? o13005 9 book is Courtney Love. Do you know who she is? A. They -- what it would indicate is that they or3003 10 A. Not off the top of my head, no. had information relevant to criminal activity. Now, 013012 11 Q. If I mention to you or if I represent that would they on the -- just the fact that a name was or3016 12 she's a famous actress, any reason to question that? circled, standing alone, reach that conclusion? orz019 13 A. No. Well, that's a hypothetical question because o1:3021 14 Q. In your view, was Courtney Love involved in obviously in this case, there's lots of other 013025 15 sex trafficking? information, ors026 16 A. Idon't know, Q. Did you understand -- it is true, is it not, 013027 17 Q. In your view, was Courtney Love a witness to that Mr. Rodriguez was trying to sell that book? o13032 18 sex trafficking? A. That's true. o130:03 19 A. If--is there a way -- are you representing Q. And is it not also true that the people who 013033 20 her name is circled? are circled are famous people? o13038 21 Q. Her name is circled on the book. In fact, we A. I'd have to refresh my recollection as to o1:30:40 22 can show it -- exactly who was circled, but I know that some famous or3040 23 A. Okay. Yeah. people were circled and some famous people were not ovz040 24 Q. It is circled on the book. circled. 01:30:42 25 A. Okay. Sure. Yeah, I mean, my -~ my ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 19 of 46 sheets Page 224 to 227 of 335 ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 10/20/2015 01:08:15 PM HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010859

04:30:44 01:30:46 01:30:48 04:30:50 01:30:52 01:30:56 01:30:59 ON Anh ON 04:31:02 @ 04:31:04 o1ai07 10 01:34:09 11 ovsisa 12 orsiny 13 o13t20 14 orsi21 15 01:34:25 16 or3ize 17 orate 18 or3i30 19 ot36:22 20 04:36:22 21 04:36:24 22 o13630 23 on3631 24 01:36:36 25 01:36:44 01:36:48 04:36:51 04:36:55 01:37:03 01:37:03 01:37:03 ON aonb @ NH «> 01:37:03 @ 01:37:03 01:37:06 10 01:37:06 41 o137.08 12 orar10 13 ors7z1e 14 ovsr2a 15 ovar2s 16 01:37:25 17 01:37:27 18 ovar20 19 orzeo7 20 or3e07 21 or3s09 22 onset 23 orse13 24 orzets 25 10/20/2015 01:08:15 PM 228 understanding would be that if her -- and this is -- could I ask a question about the circling -- or your representation? Is the circling the same type of circling that is done for Mr. Dershowitz, for example? Is it the same, you know, handwriting, same ink, same -- same appearance? You know, if it's consistent with the circling -- are you representing it's consistent with the circling? Q. Mr. Cassell, we have a document produced in discovery that has various names circled. Looking at the document, I don't see any difference among the circles. Are you aware of any document -- MR. SCAROLA: Could we have a look -- could we see the document? MR. SIMPSON: Take a -- go off the record for one moment. THE WITNESS: We are going off the video record, 10:03. (Thereupon, a recess was taken.) THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are back on the video record, 10:08 a.m. MR. SIMPSON: Okay. Back on the record. I'm going to ask the reporter to mark as Cassell Exhibit 5, a multi-page document. It's a copy of ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 229 the address book we have been speaking about, and ask that Doc -- Mr. Cassell to take a look at this, and I'm going to ask him about certain of the entries. (Cassell's I.D. Exhibit No. 5 - copy of address book was marked for identification.) MR. SIMPSON: And I will note, I put a few flags on here -- THE WITNESS: Sure. MR. SIMPSON: -- to direct your attention -- THE WITNESS: Correct, yeah. MR. SIMPSON: -- which we can -~ I'll note the pages for the record just so we have them. 38, 76, and 85. THE WITNESS: Okay. I just -- I just want to take two minutes or So -- BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. Yeah. Take -- take a moment to look at it. A. Okay. I want to make a few notes, if that's all right, just to get them in -- Q. You're going to mark on the -- A. No, not on the exhibit. I'm just going to make notes to refresh my recollection so we don't have to take time. I'm just -- I'm just making notes of the context here. This will just take another minute is ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 01:38:22 01:38:23 01:38:26 OU:38:27 01:38:51 01:38:54 01:38:54 ON Anh OD 01:38:87 onses7 | Q orse02 10 orzo0s 11 orze05 12 or3e08 13 otseis 14 ores 15 ores 16 orate 17 orze21 18 or3026 19 or392e 20 or3e20 21 0130.30 22 on3e31 2S o1se32 24 01:39:38 25 01:38:47 01:38:50 01:39:54 01:39:55 01:39:57 01:46:00 01:40:00 aN OO Ph Oh 01:40:04 orsoos 9 or4o08 10 or4o13 11 oraote 12 over? 13 oraore 14 orao23 15 o140:30 16 o14030 17 oraoas 18 oraoa7 19 01:40:40 20 orao4s 21 onaoas 22 o14o48 23 o1aos1 24 oraoss 25 Page 228 to 231 of 335 230 all. Q. Take as long as you want to look at the document. A. Super. Thank you. Okay. Yeah. I think I'm -- I'm oriented now. But I haven't looked at the Love entry. Q. My -- my first -- A. Iwant to look at the Love -- Q. -- question is: Is this a copy of the address book that you referred to in your testimony? A. Yes. Q. Okay. And if you would take a look at the -- I've marked the entries for Courtney Love. Take a look at that one. A. Allright. I see it. Q. Okay. And then if you look at the last entry, there's an entry for Professor Dershowitz that's also circled. It should be on the flag. It's two-sided. A. Oh, yeah. Q. Do you see that one? A. Isee it. Q. And then also the other one I marked is Donald Trump. A, Yes. Gotit. I see those entries circled. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 231 Q. So am I right -- I'm right, am I not, that among the others circled are: Courtney Love, Donald Trump, and Alan Dershowitz, correct? A. Correct, among the others, yes. Q. And they are all circled in the same way; are they not? A, Yeah. It's kind of a -- a box is what I would say. Some, yes. Q. Is there anything on the face of that document that leads you to conclude that the circling -- the significance of the circling is any different for one person than another? A. No. Q. So based on the document, do you infer that Courtney Love was involved in some kind of sexual abuse of minors? A. Iwould infer that if I were running a criminal investigation through the FBI and I'm trying to find people who would have relevant information, she would be one of the people I'd want to talk to. I mean, the names that are circled here, Glenn Maxwell, one of the identified traffickers, Epstein is circled, the pilot -~ one of the pilots is circled. So it's these people that all seemed to be connected are -- are all being marked here, and -- and the number of people that ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 20 of 46 sheets HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010860

232 234 ov4os7 1 are circled is, I would say, you know, 5 to 10 percent ovat 1) BY MR, SIMPSON: oratvoa «6@2~—sOOf the -- of the names ball-parking in the dark. ona 2 Q. But based on your testimony previously, you orang «3 Q. Do you know whether this address book was o14320 3 would consider all of those facts to be evidence that he orator 4 Jeffrey Epstein's address book or Glenn Maxwell's oa26 4 may have been? ovaitt 5 address book? oraaz2s «5 A. They are, you know, certainly things that I oraz 6 A. I’mnot certain exactly whose book it is. I o14331 6 would want to follow up on. oie 7 actually thought it was Alfredo Rodriguez maintaining a | o10332 7 QQ. And -- ois 8 copy of records in case he was worried that Epstein oraazs «8 A. If I were running an -- we were in the o4122 9 might try to have him killed at some point, and so this oraa3e «9 «context, I take it, of your question, you know, if 014125 10 was his insurance policy, I think he said, against that oraa3e 10 somebody is running an investigation into the ovai28 11 happening. ovaza2 11° organization, so... orat2a 12 MR. SIMPSON: Object to the nonresponsive 014343 12 Q. ‘Did you, in the course of your representation orat31 13 portion of the answer. o1aaa7 13° of Miss Roberts or any of the other Jane Doe clients you ov431 14 BY MR. SIMPSON: oaass 14 have had who have had claims against Mr. Epstein, make orarae 15 Q. Is the answer to my question: You don't know o143ss 15 any effort to find out whether Mr. Trump had abused any ovaiaa 16 whether it was Jeffrey Epstein's or Glenn Maxwell's oraao2 16 of them? oa33 17 address book? oraaog 17 MR. EDWARDS: I would just object to this oraiza 18 A. Idon't know. And the reason I don't know orasca 18 being work-product privilege as it relates to oa 19 that is because I actually believe it is neither -- orasi0 19 other cases that I’m working on with Paul that oaiaa 20 neither of their -- that's -- is it one or the other? orvaaiz 20 Jack is not involved in. ovi4s 21 Actually, I think it's a third possibility. I think onsar2 241 MR. SIMPSON: Okay. oraiaa 22 this was Alfredo Rodriguez's insurance policy against oasis 22 MR. EDWARDS: With respect to what we did o4zs1 23 getting knocked off by Jeffrey Epstein. oraate 23 during our investigation on behalf of other orvaiss 24 Q. So that's the view you have of the oraeis 24 clients. ora20s 25 — significance of this document? onesie 25 MR. SIMPSON: Okay. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 (954) 331-4400 233 235 orazcs 1 A. Yes. In part. I mean, there are other arae20 4 MS. McCAWLEY: Right. And I object on that o1az08 «32 «reasons it's significant, as we have been talking about, orag2o 2 to the extent that it reveals anything you did on oto 3 names are circled who appear to have relevant ores 3 behalf of Virginia Roberts. oa213 4 information on Jeffrey Epstein's criminal activities. oxaaza 4 MR. EDWARDS: I don't think Jack would know onan = 5 Q. Donald Trump was a friend of Jeffrey Epstein; oraar2s 5 to object to this, but because I know of another orazze 6 is that not correct? orasos = 6 case that we work on, that’s protected by our ovanag 7 A. TIreally don't -- my understanding is, yes, oras30 | 7 work-product privilege, who I talked to and who I oraz2s 8 but I -- I don't have a lot of information about Trump. orsas2 § did not. arazza 9 Q. It's true also, is it not, that Mr. Trump was o14g32 9 THE WITNESS: I'd like to -- o4234 10 a frequent visitor to Mr. Epstein's residence? oraa32 10 MR. SCAROLA: In that case, I instruct you ovazas 14 A. 1I-~I know that he visited frequent. I -- I oragsa 14 not to answer. orazaa 12 don't have a lot of information about Trump. oraaza 12 THE WITNESS: All right. oraraa 13 Q. And his name is circled in this book; is it oraz? 13 MR. SIMPSON: All right. You're here, ovs2a7 14 not? oraa3o 14 Mr. Edwards, as a client, not an attorney, orazar 15 A. I believe it is. orvaaar 15 correct? orazss 16 Q. Based on him -- assuming he's a frequent oraaaa 16 MR. EDWARDS: Yes. That's my primary role in oazs2 17 visitor to Mr. Epstein’s home, and that he's a friend of orvaaaa 17 being here, but I'm going to protect the 04300 18 Mr. Epstein's, and that his name is circled in this orsass 18 privilege to the extent that it’s not being 014303 19 book, do you infer that he was engaged in criminal orvaaar 19 protected by others who don't recognize that the oraz0g 20 = sexual abuse of minors? orsaso 20 privilege needs to be protected on other matters. orvaas 21 MS. McCAWLEY: I'm going to object to the oraase 24 MR. SIMPSON: Okay. 014313 22 extent that your answer would reveal anything oraass 22 BY MR. SIMPSON: oan 23 that my client has told you. oases 2S Q. Mr. Cassell, as of December 30th of 2014, orate 24 THE WITNESS: No. o14s03 24 were you aware that Professor Dershowitz had visited oraarr 25 or4s09 25 Mr. Epstein's home and stayed as a guest for a week in ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 (954) 331-4400 21 of 46 sheets Page 232 to 235 of 335 10/20/2015 01:08:15 PM HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010861

01:45:14 01:45:18 01:45:19 01:45:23 01:45:23 01:45:25 01:45:25 OnN DA kh WH = 01:45:27 ie} 01:45:30 01.45:30 10 01:45:31 11 04:45:32 12 01:45:36 13 ornasa7 14 01:45:37 15 04:45:40 16 orasias 17 01:45:49 18 01:45:53 19 orasss 20 01:45:57 21 01:46:01 22 04:46:06 23 01:46:10 24 01:46:13 25 236 238 01:46:45 01:46:15 01:46:20 01:46:23 01:46:28 01:46:33 01:46:35 ON Doh WH = 01:46:35 01:46:37 9 01:46:40 1 0 01:46:40 1 1 01:46:41 1 2 01:46:42 1 3 01:46:44 1 4 01:46:45 1 5 01:46:45, 1 6 01:46:47 1 7 01:46:50 1 8 01:48:52 1 9 oraesa 20 01:48:54 21 01:46:54 22 oraess 23 01:46:56 24 01:47:00 25 the company of his grandchildren, among other family o1az08 =f scene of ongoing criminal abuse of minors, and who members? o1a712 2 himself, has engaged in that criminal abuse, would bring A. Imsorry. Which residence? Which Epstein o1a716 3 his grandchildren to stay there for a week? residence? ovaris 4 A. It would depend on the circumstances. Q. Palm Beach. orar21 5 Q. When you say that Professor Dershowitz was a A. Can you -- can you restate? o1a7z33 § regular guest at the mansion, at the Palm Beach house, Q. Yes. oraza1 7 it's correct, is it not, that you're referring toa A. Imean that's kind of a compound question. I o1a7a3 «8 ~~ period after Virginia Roberts had left for Thailand? mean... oarazr 9 A. No. Q. Well, let me rephrase it. I will be clear. 0147-49 10 Q. Are you aware of any evidence -- let me back A. Yeah. ovazss 11 that up. Q. Were you aware as of December 30th of 2014 -- ovars7 12 Are -- during the period that Virginia let me back up a moment. oa7s9 13 Roberts contends she was sexually abused, which I A. Sure. ox4a02 14 understand to be middle of 1999 to middle of 2002 -- is Q. You indicated yesterday that part of the o14a09 15 that consistent with your understanding? basis for your conclusion that this pleading -~ it was oraato 16 A. Approximately, yes. appropriate to file this pleading accusing Professor orast2 17 Q._ -- how many times did Professor Dershowitz Dershowitz of misconduct was that he was a guest at the orate 18 visit the Palm Beach mansion during that period? Palm Beach house, correct? oraei7 19 A. My understanding is in the neighborhood of -- A. No. It was more than that. He was a o14a21 20 what was it? Three to five times a year, staying two to frequent guest, a frequent overnight guest. oraa2s 21 three nights at a time. Q. My question is: As of December 30th, 2014, oraa2s 22 Q. And was that your understanding as of were you aware that Professor Dershowitz had spent a otaa.22 23 December 30th of 2014? week at the Palm Beach house with family members, onaese 24 A. Yes. including his grandchildren? oraas2 25 Q. What was the basis for your understanding, ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 (954) 331-4400 237 239 A. No. otae3a 41 what pieces, what documents, or testimony? Q. Okay. Do you think it's reasonable -- would oranas | 2 A. Right. The information, you know, I gave a it be reasonable to believe that someone who is oraaa 3) long presentation yesterday. So it was that committing criminal sexual abuse of minors at a home occ 4 information. where such abuse, as you understand it, is a daily ora «5 Q. I want to focus now specifically -- I'm not occurrence would bring his grandchildren to stay for a 0:48:50 6 looking for a full answer on your entire views -- week? or4s:so | 7 A. Yeah, right. A. It would depend on the circumstances. I orvaess 8 Q. -- on the case. mean, you know, so -- you know, it would depend on the | 012053 9 A. Il appreciate that. circumstances. oraase 10 Q. I just want to say, you've testified that you MR. SCAROLA: Are you representing that o148:s7 11. understood as of December 30th, 2014, that Professor Jeffrey Epstein was there at the time? o1ag03 12 Dershowitz had -- was a visitor at the Palm Beach MR. SIMPSON: I'm not answering questions. 014904 13 mansion three to five times during this relevant period I'm asking questions. oras09 14 of 1999 to -- middle of 1999 to the middle of 2002. MR. SCAROLA: Oh, okay. oao14 15 What was the basis on December 30th of 2014, for just BY MR. SIMPSON: o1a920 16 that fact? Q. So, in your view, you can -- let me -- let me oan 17 A. Right. I mean, I will take about a minute rephrase that. aia23 18 here because there are a few things I want -- You say it would depend on the arag25 19 Q. Okay. And I want to make sure my question is circumstances -- o14928 20 clear. A. Sure. Sure. or4028 21 A. Sure, QQ. -- that's your answer? o14g29 22 Q. I'm not asking you about any of your A. Yes. 014930 23 inferences about anything else. Just, what's the basis Q. Okay. So that you don't find it incongruous or4a3a 24 for your belief that he visited three to five times that someone who knows that a particular home is the o+4e32 25 during that two-year period? ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 10/20/2015 01:08:15 PM Page 236 to 239 of 335 ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 22 of 46 sheets HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010862

01:49:39 04:49:40 01:49:42 01:49:44 01:49:46 01:49:46 01:49:48 ON OOH hm WDM «A 01:49:48 01:49:48 9 01:49:51 1 0 01:49:57 1 1 01:50:02 1 2 04:50:04 1 3 01:50:06 1 4 01:50:07 1 5 04:50:10 1 6 01:50:12 1 7 01:50:15 1 8 01:50:15 1 9 01:50:17 20 01:50:19 21 04:50:19 22 01:50:22 23 o1s024 24 04:50:25 25 04:50:28 1:50.30 04:50:33 01:50:34 07:50:37 01:50:39 04:50:43 ON Aah WN = 07:50:46 01:50:48 9 04:50:52 10 orsosa 14 01:57:00 12 04:51:00 13 01:54:00 14 01:54:04 15 04:51:03 16 ovsio0e 17 01:51:06 18 04:54:06 19 04:51:07 20 O4:5t:16 21 04:51:14 22 04:54:14 23 04:51:16 24 O451:18 25 23 of 46 sheets MR. SCAROLA: Could I ask for a clarification? Are you looking only for direct evidence and you want to exclude the circumstantial evidence? Is that the way you want to -- MR. SIMPSON: I'm asking. You can object to the form. BY MR, SIMPSON: Q. My question is: What was -- what were you -- what did you have in mind as supporting your conclusion or belief that he -- that Professor Dershowitz visited three to five times during that relevant period? MS. McCAWLEY: And I'm sorry. Can I just place an objection on the record. I'm going to object to the extent that -~ so that you do not reveal attorney/client privileged communication, unless it's something that's already public that she's revealed. THE WITNESS: Okay. Right. So I'm going to just exclude -~ I take it your question isn't asking about any communications, BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. = My question is asking about that, but I understand you're going to refuse to provide it. MS. McCAWLEY: Unless it's already public. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 241 THE WITNESS: Okay. So as of December 30th, I'm going to exclude any communications from Virginia Roberts from -- MR. SCAROLA: Except to extent that they have already been made public. That is, if she has given express permission to make disclosures, these were not confidential communications, but communications intended to be communicated to third parties, then you are permitted to include information from Virginia Roberts in your response to that extent. And 1-- go ahead. THE WITNESS: Okay. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. As of December -- A. Right. Q. -- 30th, 2014 -- A. Right. Q. -- correct? So -- A. Yeah, that's right. QQ. -- any -- any public statements by her after December 30th, 2014 would not be included in the answer. A. Okay. MS. McCAWLEY: But let me be clear. Let me be clear about my objection. To the extent that she revealed something to you in a nonprivileged ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 04:54:23 04:51:25 01:51:26 04:54:28 04:54:30 01:51:32 01:51:36 01:51:39 OoOoOnN DM A Rh W DH a 01:51:45 01:51:49 10 04:51:52 1 1 01:51:55 12 01:52:00 13 o1s200 14 01:52:03 15 01:52:04 16 04:52:06 17 01:52:09 18 01:52:09 19 OS214 20 04:52:14 21 01:52:19 22 04:52:20 23 01:52:21 24 01:52:22 25 04:92:23 04:52:28 O152:31 01:52:34 04:52:35 04:52:37 01:52:41 01:52:43 OoOaOn na kh WR a 01:52:45 o1s249 10 01:52:51 11 01:52:54 12 04:52:58 13 04:53:04 14 04:53:03 15 01:53:04 16 01:53:07 17 01:53:08 18 04:53:13 19 04:53:16 20 04:53:19 21 0453.21 22 04:53:28 23 ovsase 24 04:53:35 25 Page 240 to 243 of 335 242 context, in other words, information that was going to be disclosed, not for advice, but factual information that she intended to disclose, that's no -- that's not privileged. But if it's something that she communicated to you in confidence with respect to getting legal advice, then that would be privileged. THE WITNESS: Right. Okay. So Juan Alessi's deposition, Alfredo Rodriguez's deposition, and then considerable circumstantial evidence which we don't have to rehash here involving the close personal association between Epstein and Dershowitz. I mean, again, we can rehash all of that, but those were -- those are -- that's kind of a quick -- because I know you want to get to a lot of questions -- that's a quick sort of highlight film, if you will. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. Mr. Cassell, isn't it true that Mr. Rodriguez was not hired until several years after the Summer -- A. 2004. Q. Let me ask it again. -- until well after 2002? A. Yeah, about 2004. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 243 Q. And Mr. Rodriguez would have no personal knowledge of how often Professor Dershowitz visited during a period two years or three years before he was hired; isn't that true? A. So, look, this is -- this is why I was trying to speed up the answer to the question. We have a sex trafficking organization that is running a common scheme and plan that is continuing on until it was interrupted by law enforcement about 2005 and 2006. So what the -- the criminal organization is doing in 2004, unless I have some significant evidence that it's different than what was going on in 2002, 2001, 2000, 1999, I think it's reasonable to conclude that the same sort of criminal activities are going on later. So if -- if you want -- if you want me to get into the -~ the full scope of the criminal organization, we can get into it. But the fact that somebody in 2004 sees this going on, leads me to conclude that it’s probably the same thing going on in the absence of other information in 2001. Q. So from Mr. Rodriguez's testimony about what was going on, so to speak -- and my question related, what was going on the number of times that Professor Dershowitz visited. That's the topic. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 10/20/2015 01:08:15 PM HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010863

01:53:37 01:53:37 01:53:40 01:53:45 04:53:52 01:53:55 01:53:57 01:53:59 04:54:02 01:54:05 01:54:07 01:54:05 04:54:43 04:54:15 01:54:15 04:54:18 01:54:48 01:54:23 01:54:26 01:54:30 01:54:33 01:54:39 01:54:42 01:54:45 01:54:47 01:54:47 01:54:48 04:54:49 04:54:53 04:54:55 01:54:57 01:54:55 01:54:56 01:54:57 01:54:57 01:54:58 01:54:59 01:55:01 01:55:02 04:55:06 01:55:08 01:55:09 On Aah OND = 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 015428 20 orseze 21 01:54:28 22 23 24 orsass 25 ON Dab WON «= wo 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 oxssi10 22 04:55:43 23 01:55:15 24 01:55:19 10/20/2015 01:08:15 PM 25 244 A. Right. Q. That because he visited, according to Mr. Rodriguez, several times a year in 2004, 2005, he must have visited several times a year in 2000 -- 19- -- middle of 1999 to the middle of 2002. A. Ididn't say must have. I said that that's going to be evidence of the common scheme and plan, and then, in the absence of, you know, some falling out between people or somebody becoming, you know, more associated or less associated with a criminal organization. I mean, if you want to get into the circumstantial evidence, in 2003, there's an article on which, you know, Dershowitz identifies himself -- Q. Let me interrupt you because I'm asking -- A. Okay. QQ. -- about -- my only question is evidence of how -- not anything, whether engaged in conduct or didn't engage in conduct, just how many times he came during this period. A. Right. MR. SCAROLA: Excuse me, counsel. That's the reason why I asked you to clarify whether you want to limit this to direct evidence or whether you want all of the evidence including circumstantial evidence, because as we both know, ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 245 circumstantial evidence is good evidence. A well-connected chain of circumstance can be -- MR. SIMPSON: MR. SCAROLA: MR. SIMPSON: MR. SCAROLA: as compelling proof as direct evidence of a given fact. That's the law. If you don't want -- We really don’t need a speech. -- a well-connected -- We really don't -~ ~- chain of circumstance may be MR. SIMPSON: Really, sir. MR. SCAROLA: -- the circumstantial evidence -- MR. SIMPSON: Mr. Scarola -- MR. SCAROLA: -- tell us that. MR. SIMPSON: -- please don’t make speeches, and please don't coach the witness. MR. SCAROLA: Just tell us that. I'm not coaching the witness. I'm asking you -- you're asking ambiguous questions. MR. SIMPSON: There's nothing ambiquous -- MR. SCAROLA: If you want only direct evidence, we will give you only direct evidence. If you want a full and complete answer, it's got to include circumstantial evidence, so don't cut him off when he's giving you that. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 01:55:20 01:55:23 01:55:26 01:55:27 01:55:27 04:55:27 01:55:27 04:55:32 01:55:37 On Da bP On = 9 oxss43 10 orssaa 11 orsss2 12 0155s 13 orssss 14 015559 15 o1se03 16 orscos 17 orseoo 18 orser2 19 orse-te 20 0156.25 24 ors628 22 018634 23 orsea7 24 orseso 25 01:56:44 01:56:47 04:56:52 01:56:56 01:56:57 01:56:58 01:57:01 01:57:05 04:57:07 On Dah OD ~- 9 oxsr14 10 ors721 114 ors72s 12 os727 13 orsr29 14 ovs730 15 o1s7a1 16 os733 17 ovsras 18 ors7r39 19 ors7320 20 ors7a0 21 ors742 22 orsraa 23 018754 24 orsrsa 25 246 MR. SIMPSON: Really, objecting to the form of the question preserves all of any problems there may be with the question. MR. SCAROLA: No, sir. MR. SIMPSON: We don't need a speech. MR. SCAROLA: It doesn't. It doesn’t. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. Mr. Cassell, is it your testimony that, from Mr. Rodriguez's testimony about how often he says Professor Dershowitz visited in a 2004/2005 time frame, it's fair to draw an inference about how often he visited in an earlier -- three-year earlier time frame? A. In the circumstances of this case, absolutely. Q. And would it be fair to infer from the number of times that Donald Trump visited three years later, how often he visited at an earlier period? A. I did not investigate the circumstances involving Trump. He wasn't somebody that was coming up. Q. Were you aware on December 30th of 2014 that Donald Trump was quoted in Vanity Fair as saying: "I've known Jeff" -- referring to Epstein -- oh, I'm sorry. It was a New Yorker Magazine, not Vanity Fair, That he was quoted as saying: "I've known Jeff" -~ referring to Epstein -- "for 15 years. Terrific quy. And he's a fot ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 247 of fun to be with.” It even said that: "He likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it, Jeffrey enjoys the social ~~ social life"? Were you aware of that on December 30th, 2014? A. Possibly. I mean that sounds vaguely familiar. Trump has just not been somebody that -- that I’ve paid much attention to in this case. Q. Based on that statement, and the facts we discussed earlier about Mr. Trump visiting and being a friend, and the other circumstances we discussed, are you suspicious about whether he engaged in sexual misconduct with minors? MS. McCAWLEY: I'm going to object to the extent that you can't reveal anything that my client has informed you of, THE WITNESS: Right. If we set aside that information, I'm not -- I'm not suspicious, no, not given the information I have. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. Okay. So notwithstanding that his name is circled in the address book, he was a good friend, he visited often, and he was quoted as saying that Jeff was a terrific guy who liked young women almost as much as Trump did, you're not even suspicious? ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 Page 244 to 247 of 335 24 of 46 sheets HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010864

07:58:01 04:58:05 04:58:06 01:58:08 01:58:10 04:58:43 04:58:16 Ont oa h Wn «a 01:58:18 @ 01:58:24 o1:sa24 10 ovse27 11 osa32 12 orsaze 13 orseaa 14 orseaas 15 orsea7 16 ovsea? 17 orseas 18 01:58:54 19 oxsas: 20 01:58:53 21 07:58:55 22 01:58:56 23 orses7 24 orssse 25 04:59:03 01:59:04 01:58:06 01:59:08 01:59:10 04:59:43 04:58:15 aN Oa & OH =A 04:59:18 01:59:22 9 04:58:26 1 0 01:59:26 1 1 01:58:27 1 2 04:59:34 1 3 01:59:34 1 4 01:59:37 4 5 01:59:42 1 6 orsoas 17 orsoa? 18 01:59:49 1 9 01:59:53 20 01:59:53 21 ovsess 22 01:59:59 23 02:00:04 24 02:00:07 25 25 of 46 sheets 248 A. Not -- you know, let's break that down ina couple pieces. The fact that his name is circled, if I were running an FBI investigation, I'd go send somebody to see what he knew about it, but no, it would take a fot more for me to become suspicious that somebody is involved in -- in sexual activity like that. Q. Okay. So you would agree with me then, that the fact that a person often visited the mansion, the person -- the fact that a person was a friend of Mr. Epstein for 15 years, the fact that the person had stated publicly that: "Mr. Epstein liked young women almost as much as I do myself,” and the fact that the name is circled in the address book is not sufficient to raise a Suspicion that that person engaged in sexual misconduct? A. So... Q. Yes or no. It's a yes or no question. A. It requires -- MR. SCAROLA: You're not required to answer yes or no, if a yes or no response alone would be misleading. THE WITNESS: The problem is the word "suspicion." I'm not particularly suspicious on those facts, but it -- you know, what do you mean ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 249 by "suspicion"? If 1 -- if I were running an FBI investigation and somebody circled a name as -- as saying, look, this fellow may have some information, I'd go follow up on that. If you say that's suspicion, then the answer would be, yes. But I -- you know, based on that information alone, no. I mean that -- that wouldn't -- wouldn't be enough for me to, you know, invest time and energy into that particular possibility. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. Okay. So none of those facts are sufficient even to justify spending time and energy, correct? A. Unless -- if I'm running -- this is -- again, what do you mean by "suspicion"? Time and energy in the context of somebody who is running a pro bono case with limited resources to try to figure out what the sex trafficking ring's going to do, I'm not going to chase after that rabbit. It seems farfetched. I'm going to focus my efforts on the people who appear to be more directly involved. Q. Okay. So based on the facts that I gave you a moment ago, you think it's farfetched that Donald Trump was engaged in abusing minors? A. If that's all I had, I would not invest time ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 02:00:44 02:00:12 02:00:16 02:00:21 02:00:24 02:00:26 02:00:28 On Oa hk & NY «a 02:00:29 <2] 02:00:33 02:00:33 1 0 02:00:34 1 1 02:00:36 1 2 020037 13 o20038 14 o2z00-41 15 020044 16 020046 17 020047 18 oz0048 19 oz0o4a 20 02:00:50 21 020051 22 020051 23 ozo0s3 24 o2008s 25 02:00:56 02:00:57 02:00:58 02:01:04 02:01:02 02:07:03 02:01:05 On oak WH = 02:01:09 <2] 02:01:08 oz0109 10 ozo110 11 ozo 12 020017 13 ozontt 14 o20113 15 ozo113 16 ozoris 17 ozorts 18 20120 19 020122 20 oz0124 21 ozor2s 22 o2z0128 23 oro129 24 o20132 25 Page 248 to 251 of 335 250 and energy in that, right. Q. And you referred to your pro bono case. What is your best estimate of how much money you have made representing victims of Jeffrey Epstein? A. In which case are we talking about now? Q. Any -- any case representing a victim of Jeffrey Epstein. A. Ineed to confer with -- MS. McCAWLEY: Yeah. I'm going to object. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. And that -- that's a fact -- that's not a privileged question. That's a factual question. A. Factual. Well, there are -- there are -- Q. Just how much money? You don't have to tell me who the clients are. Just how much money? A. Okay. I need to -- MR. SIMPSON: There's a question pending. I object to a break. There's no possible privilege. MR. SCAROLA: He has a privilege -- he has a privilege question. He wants to consult with counsel. MR. SIMPSON: Well, really? My question is how much money, and that's privileged? MR. SCAROLA: It may be. I don't know. We ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 need to talk. THE WITNESS: That's why I need to -- MR. SCOTT: There's no federal law or state law that supports that financial information and fees is privileged. MS. McCAWLEY: We can argue about that because that's in my motion, so we can argue about that. MR. SIMPSON: Well, can ~- can -- MR. SCOTT: That one, I know all about. MR, SCAROLA: You're objecting to our taking a break -- MR. SIMPSON: MR, SCAROLA: pending? MR. SIMPSON: MR, SCAROLA: witness has a legal question about privilege. We lam objecting -- -- while this question is That's correct. It is our position that the are going to take a break. We are going to talk about it. It may turn out that it's not a problem at all. I don't know. THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are going off the video record, 10:38. MR. SIMPSON: With my note, we are taking a break over my objection. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 10/20/2015 01:08:15 PM HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010865

02:01:34 02:01:44 02:15:10 02:46:42 02:16:42 02:16:44 02:16:46 on Oak OO bw = 02:16:50 02:16:56 9 02:16:56 1 0 oztess 14 o21701 12 o2s704 13 o2z1707 14 oxi710 15 ozi713 16 27s 17 o21723 18 ozt72s 19 o2t727 20 021730 21 o21733 22 021733 23 021735 24 021741 25 02:17:45 02:17:51 02:47:53 02:97:54 02:47:58 02:18:00 02:18:00 aN Oar Wn = 02:18:01 is) 02:18:07 oziere 10 oatasa 14 over? 12 ozreta 13 ortese 14 or1a26 15 o21820 16 o21a3e 17 o21838 18 oztear 19 021842 20 02:48:44 21 ors 22 oztaas 23 o21848 24 ozieas 25 10/20/2015 01:08:15 PM 252 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: 10:38. o2tas: 1 (Thereupon, a recess was taken.) oztess 2 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are back on the video ontess 3 record, 10:49 a.m. oztess 4 BY MR. SIMPSON: oasas9 | 5 Q. Back on the record. My question, oxto00 «6 Mr. Cassell, was: Whatis your best estimate of how ozs903 7 much money you have made representing victims of Jeffrey o21903 8 Epstein? coi0s | 9 A. In which case are we talking about? o21906 10 Q. In -- in any case. Combined total. ozsa0a 14 A. Okay. With regard to the CVRA case, that's ozis00 12 pro bono, no money there. With regard to the other o2t912 13 cases, I'd like to answer your question, but due to ozto1s 14 confidentiality obligations that have been imposed upon | 21915 15 me by Jeffrey Epstein, in the course of negotiating ozta21 16 those cases, I'm not permitted to answer that question. | 021927 17 MR. SCAROLA: We are certainly willing to oz1928 18 respond appropriately to a court order in that o2to33 19 regard, but it requires a court order to release ozte3s 20 us from the contractual confidentiality ozt93¢ 21 obligations that we are under. o2rea0 22 BY MR. SIMPSON: ort942 23 Q. Is it your testimony, Mr. Cassell, that there oxtea2 24 are confidentiality agreements with Mr. Epstein that ores 25 ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 253 preclude you from giving the total amount paid without ozteaa 1 breaking it down into particular cases? ozieas | 2 A. I'm sorry. I didn't understand. ozi94a « D Q. Oh, maybe that wasn't clear. Let me do it orroso 4 this way so we avoid -- oztese 5§ A. Yeah, caress = § Q. -- the confidentiality issues. oziesa 7 In how many cases have you been counsel for a o22000 B person suing Mr. Epstein alleging that she was a victim? o22z00 9 A. Counsel of record? 022004 10 Q. Put it this way. How -- weil, start with o22004 11 that, counsel of record. oz2008 12 A. I believe three. oz2008 13 Q. Okay. And in addition to those three, have 02:20:00 14 you assisted other counsel in some way without becoming 22010 15 counsel of record in cases by women suing Mr. Epstein 022013 16 alleging that they had been abused? o22018 17 A. I believe there’s one other case in addition 022023 18 to the counsel of record case. 022028 19 Q. And without telling me -- 022028 20 A. Id--I'd have to go double-check my record. 022020 21 This is an approximate best recollection. 022033 22 Q. All right. 022035 23 A. It's about four. 02:20:38 24 Q. To the best of your recollection, you were 022036 25 ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 Page 252 to 255 of 335 254 counsel of record in three cases and you were involved in another case -- at least one other case in which you did not appear -- A. That's right. Q. -- as counsel of record; is that correct? A. That's -- that's my recollection right now, yeah. Q. Allright. How many of those cases have been resolved at this point? A. AHL. All -- of the four, I recall all four have been resolved. Q. Okay. Without telling me the amount, did you receive -- all four were settled; is that right? A. Correct. Q. Without telling me the amount, is it correct that in ail four of those cases, you received a legal fee? A. I think that starts to call for a question IT need to consult with my attorney about. Q. Simply the question of whether in each of them you received a fee? A. I just want to... THE WITNESS: Is -- is there any problem -- MR. SCAROLA: You can respond to that. You can answer yes or no to that question. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 255 THE WITNESS: Yes, I received something. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. Okay. Was the fee -- and if it's different for the -- the cases, tell me, but was it a contingent fee or some kind of hourly fee? MR, SCAROLA: That -- that does get into attorney/client privileged matters. The terms -- MR. SIMPSON: You're instructing him not to answer? MR. SCAROLA: representation are attorney/client privilege. I -- the terms of the instruct him not to answer. MR. SIMPSON: All right. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. In addition to these four cases that have been resolved, are you representing any other clients who are alleging, in a case seeking monetary damages, that they were abused by Jeffrey Epstein? A. I-- MS. McCAWLEY: I’m going to object to the extent that this seeks any information related to Virginia Roberts that could be deemed privileged or confidential. THE WITNESS: So what's the... ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 26 of 46 sheets HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010866

02:20:36 02:20:38 02:20:40 02:20:40 02:20:44 02:20:47 02:20:52 On ah WH = 02:20:53 wo 02:20:58 02:20:59 1 0 o2r02 14 or2102 12 o22103 13 o22t0 14 erates 15 oz2t09 16 ozarte 17 oz2t11 18 czars 19 ozaris 20 oz2ii9 21 022120 22 o22121 23 oz2t21 24 oz2125 25 02:24:30 02:21:33 02:21:37 02:21:41 02:21:45 02:21:47 02:21:50 SON Oah SD 02:24:51 wo 02:21:55 ozerss 10 azerss 11 oz2202 12 022204 13 oz2208 14 oz 15 o2ze14 16 02:22:18 17 a22220 18 o2z2224 19 oz2225 20 oz2226 21 ozez2 22 022233 23 az2239 24 ozezat 25 27 of 46 sheets 256 BY MR, SIMPSON: Q. I'm -- I'm trying to close a loop here. A. Yeah. Q. I'm asking whether you were involved in any other cases in which claims have been made against Jeffrey Epstein for damages that are still active; they have not been resolved? A. So we are talking civil cases, unresolved civil cases against Jeffrey Epstein right now? Q. Unresolved cases seeking money from Jeffrey Epstein. MR. SCAROLA: And to the extent that that question calls for matters that are of public record, then, obviously, you can respond. THE WITNESS: Right. Yeah. None. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. Are there -- and I'm not asking for the name. Are there any not of public record that -- A. What would bea "not"? Q. Well, if you had made a claim that's not in suit, for example. A. Oh, against Jeffrey Epstein? Q. Yes. A. Yeah. No, I don't -- I don't think there's anything. Yeah, no -- no claims against Epstein, right. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4460 257 Q. And -- and it's true, is it not, that if you're successful in the CVRA case, in setting aside the nonprosecution agreement, you expect to get other clients who will have claims against Jeffrey Epstein? A. If we -- in civil claims? Q. Claims for damages, claims for money from Jeffrey Epstein. A. That -- I mean, that starts to -- if the nonprosecution agreement is set aside? Q. Yes, if you're successful. A. haven't really -- that sounds pretty speculative. I haven't really thought about the civil -- the focus of the CVRA case is criminal. I haven't thought about, you know, whether, civil claims could somehow arise out of that. I mean, we are talking about, you know, events that took place long ago. There would be statute of limitations issues, you know. Whether they are viable civil claims at this point has not been something that I have, you know, given much thought to. Q. Sos it your testimony then that you have not thought about the question of whether success in the CVRA case may or result in you obtaining additional clients with claims for money damages against Jeffrey Epstein? ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 02:22:42 02:22:44 02:22:46 02:22:49 02:22:53 02:22:58 02:23:04 On OO & WH = 02:23:03 wo 02:23:07 oz23a07 10 o22300 11 022309 12 o2e3t0 13 oze3at1 14 oz2a12 15 02:23:15 16 o2231a 17 022323 18 oz2a24 19 02:23:26 20 02:23:26 21 022330 22 022334 23 022338 24 022340 25 02:23:43 02:23:43 02:23:45 02:23:48 02:23:50 02:23:52 02:23:55 ON Dak WH 02:23:57 o22400 9 o22402 10 o22a05 11 022400 12 o22¢10 13 oz2013 14 oz2415 15 022017 16 create 17 022423 18 o22027 19 022423 20 022430 21 o22434 22 022438 23 oz2saa 24 ozzaas 25 Page 256 to 259 of 335 258 A. Yeah. That hasn't been something that I have focused on, no. I mean... Q. tis -- it is correct, is it not, that you anticipate that if you are successful in setting aside the nonprosecution agreement, that the names of additional victims will become known; didn't you testify to that yesterday? A. I-- I'm not -- I must be confused here. I don't remember. Q. Well, wait -- I don't want to -- you know, let me ask the question -- A. Yeah. Q. _-- rather than my recollection. A. Yeah, yeah. That's what I'm not... Q. My question is: Do you anticipate that if you're successful in setting aside the nonprosecution agreement, that the names of additional victims will become known? A. Additional Epstein victims at this point? Q. Yes. A. Again, it's pretty speculative. The -- the issue -- you know, the case, you know, the events were roughly a decade ago. I mean, we are always hoping that there might be somebody additional that would come forward, but that hasn't been the focus of the ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 259 litigation. Q. Whether -- A. And you always hope that there are -- yeah, I mean, any time you file a case, ah, I hope some more, you know, witnesses will come forward to support that case, but that hasn't been the focus, trying to secure additional -- additional witnesses. Thatis a possibility, though. I mean, I think in fairness to your question, that is a possibility that, you know, if -- if the case attracts attention and -- and somebody, you know, says, you know, gosh, now that I -- I -- I -- you know, I moved away to escape Epstein and now it's safe for me to come back, or -~ or now I realize I have a claim, that's always a possibility. I certainly wouldn't want to suggest that, you know, we are ruling that possibility out. Q. And for the same reason that additional witnesses might become available -- known, additional clients might become known, correct? A. That is a theoretical possibility, yes. Q. In these four cases that you mentioned, the three that were, which you were counsel of record and one in which you were not, did you meet at any time in person with the clients? And if it's different as to some than others, tell me that, but -- ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 10/20/2015 01:08:15 PM HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010867

02:24:50 02:24:50 02:24:52 02:24:53 02:24:57 02:24:58 02:24:59 On Don hb WH =a 02:25:01 @ 02:25:03 o225.05 10 02:25:08 11 e221 12 o22514 13 ozsi4 14 02:25:19 15 022520 16 02:25:22 17 o2z2s23 18 022626 19 022528 20 022532 21 02:25:34 22 0225:37 23 022542 24 or2saa 25 02:25:49 02:25:54 02:25:56 02:26:04 02:26:05 02:26:06 02:26:10 QAnN Oa hw DN = 02:26:15 o22ze18 9 022623 10 022625 11 ozz6e28 12 022633 13 or2eas 14 ozz636 15 oz2ea1 16 022646 17 o22z649 18 022650 19 o22686 20 022650 21 0227.00 22 02:27:02 23 c22r0s 24 022707 25 10/20/2015 01:08:15 PM Yes, In all four, you met with the clients? in three of the four, And were those three the three in which you were counsel of record? A. Yes. Q. As of December -- A. I believe I was counsel of record on all three of those. I would have to double-check. I know I was counsel of record in the federal case. The two of them are state cases, I believe, that it was pro hac in the state cases, Q. Okay. I won't ask you the names, but in the four cases, what are the initials of your clients? A. Okay. So the -- the -- Q. Put it this way: How are they identified in the caption that you filed? A. Well, also the three that were filed, one was ~~ one was the initials S.R. I referred to Miss S.R. yesterday. That was the Jane Doe case in Federal Court in front of Judge Marra. There were two state claims. I'll -- I'll identify the clients as E.W. and L.M. Q. And then the fourth one? A. The fourth one, I believe -- the initial M. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 261 and I believe the last initial was B., but I may be wrong about the B. First initial M. Q. At the -- okay. At the time that you filed the joinder motion -- A. Yes, Q. -- in the federal case, so December 30th of 2014, you knew that naming Prince Andrew would generate substantial publicity, correct? A. I knew it would attract a lot of attention. Yeah, I mean, “substantial” we could debate, but, sure, I knew that that was going to -- you know, once you start exposing the extent of this criminal activity, obviously, there were going to be a lot of people interested, yes. Q. And you also knew that naming Professor Dershowitz would attract publicity? A. Well, when you say "naming," one of the things you've got to understand is the names were already in the case, both Prince Andrew and Alan Dershowitz. We had pending discovery requests for information about both of them. So when you say "naming them,” you know, they were already named in the case. Now, would the additional allegations have attracted additional attention? Sure. Q. Mr. Cassell, it's true, is it not, that the ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 02:27:40 02:27:16 02:27:24 02:27:25 02:27:28 02:27:31 02:27:31 On On kh WD a 02:27:39 @ 02:27:41 oz2745 10 oz2raa 14 czars: 12 02:27:54 13 ozarss 14 ozorsa 15 ee 16 022808 17 022812 18 oz2a12 19 ozze19 20 0228:20 21 022821 22 022824 23 022825 24 02:28:27 25 02:28:29 02:28:31 02:28:33 02:28:36 02:28:37 02:28:38 02:28:45 Aan aanh @ NH = 02:28:50 o22886 9 o22as7 10 oz2z000 11 02:29:09 12 0229-12 13 022017 14 oz2019 15 022922 16 022927 17 022929 18 o22031 19 022935 20 0229:38 21 022042 22 02:29:43 23 0220-47 24 oz2049 25 262 filing on December 30th of 2014, was the first time that you had ever, yes, ever on behalf of Virginia Roberts or any other client, accused Professor Dershowitz or Prince Andrew of sexual abuse in a public filing? A. If you're talking about direct allegation, that’s correct. Q. Had you ever public -- well, at no other time that -- you expected when you filed the pleading on December 30th, 2014, that it would be -- be something of public record that would generate publicity, correct? A. Public record, the focus was not generating publicity. Of course, when you file an allegation like that, there certainly would have been -- we would anticipate there would have been publicity, absolutely. Q. And before December 30th of 2014, to the best of your knowledge, neither you, nor anyone else, had told Professor Dershowitz that there were allegations that he personally had engaged in sexual misconduct? A. um... MS. McCAWLEY: I'm going to object to that date if that reveals anything that would be privileged between something that would have been communicated by the client. MR. SIMPSON: No. These are communications to Professor Dershowitz. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 263 MR. SCAROLA: Yes. And that could very well include attorney/client privileged communications. MR. SIMPSON: Let me -- I'll ask my question. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. My question is: Did you ever advise Professor Dershowitz that there were allegations that he had engaged, himself, in sexual misconduct with minors? A. Not me personally, no. Q. Are you aware of any e-mail, letter, other communication from anybody that went to Professor Dershowitz that told Professor Dershowitz that he had been accused of engaging in misconduct himself? A. Well, there -- I mean, I'm aware that there was a deposition request in 2009. There was a deposition request in 2011. That was accompanied by an exchange of correspondence that said, for example, numerous witnesses have placed you in the presence of Jeffrey Epstein and underaged girls. It didn't then go on to say, and you were committing sexual abuse of them, but it said numerous witnesses had -- had done that. And I think a reasonable inference would be that, you know, you're verily sure that a witness and then that also raises the possibility of -- well, I mean, I think Professor Dershowitz mentioned yesterday, ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 Page 260 to 263 of 335 28 of 46 sheets HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010868

02:29:51 02:29:54 02:29:57 02:30:00 02:30:02 02:30:04 02:30:07 ON Oak @ NH = 02:30:15 @ 02:30:20 023028 10 02:30:26 11 023029 12 02:30:32 13 ozsoas 14 oza03a8 15 023042 16 oz3048 17 oz2048 18 02:30:52 19 oz:308s 20 oz3089 21 023103 22 02:31:03 23 o2z3107 24 ozai12 25 02:31:15 02:31:20 02:34:23 02:34:23 02:31:25 02:34:26 02:31:27 ON Oo kh WDD « 02:31:29 osr33 «9 ozaras 10 02:34:38 11 o23142 12 o23r43 13 023146 14 02:31:48 15 ozatst 16 023154 17 ozas7 18 oz3ts7 19 oz3rse 20 023180 214 02:31:59 22 023150 23 02:32:02 24 023203 25 29 of 46 sheets 264 that if you're in the presence of a convicted sex offender, or a sex offender and sex abuse is going on, you would have obligations, for example, at a minimum to report that, and it raises the possibility of other criminal activity as well. Q. Is it your testimony, Mr. Cassell, that telling a person that multiple people have identified you as a witness to some activity is fair notice that you, yourself, are accused of engaging in criminal misconduct? A. So--so you, I think, recharacterized the letter that went to Mr. Dershowitz in 2011. The letter, as I recall, doesn't say he is a witness. It says, if I recall -- we can double-check the language -~ but I believe the language says: Numerous witnesses have placed you in the presence of Jeffrey Epstein, underaged girls, and Epstein. Then, you know, so at that point, given what we know in this case, given that at that point in 2011, there had been an ongoing set of allegations against Mr. Epstein, I -- I think your question doesn't -- doesn't take into account this surrounding context. Not to mention the fact there had been a 2009 deposition request and a 2013 document request. Q. Okay. I think you accurately characterized ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 265 the communication about the deposition request that multiple persons have placed you in the presence -- A. Right. Q. — -- of minors -~ A. Right, Q. -- correct? A. I believe that’s my recollection. Numerous witnesses have placed you in the presence of sex offend -- at that point, convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, who was convicted of sexually abusing underaged girls, and underaged girls, and those are the subjects we would like to question you about. And rather than getting a response that says, well, let me clear that all up, the response that's received was, something along the lines of, give me more information and -- and, quote: I'll decide whether I want to cooperate, close quote, or something along those lines. Q. Mr. Cassell, let me -- I'm going to read to you == A. Good. Q. -- from the letter itself -- A. Okay. Q. -- and tell me if it's consistent with your recollection. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 02:32:03 02:32:08 02:32:08 02:32:09 02:32:11 02:32:12 02:32:43 02:32:14 02:32:15 02:32:23 02:32:26 02:32:26 02:32:28 02:32:34 02:32:33 02:32:37 02:32:41 02:32:44 02:32:47 02:32:51 02:32:53 02:32:54 02:32:54 02:32:55 02:32:57 02:33:00 02:33:06 02:33:09 02:33:12 02:33:15 02:33:22 02:33:22 02:33:23 02:33:24 02:33:28 02:33:28 02:33:34 02:33:33 02:33:33 02:33:38 02:33:41 02:33:43 02:33:46 02:33:49 AN Oa hk WwW DH =A 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ON Oana h WD «a @ 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 264 to 267 of 335 266 MR. SIMPSON: I'm sorry. You were right, yes. MR. SCAROLA: Can you just show it to him? MR. SIMPSON: I'll read it, and then if he wants to look at it, that will be fine. MR. SCAROLA: Thank you. BY MR, SIMPSON: Q. This is a letter from Mr. Scarola to Mr. Dershowitz dated August 23rd, 2011. The second sentence says -~ well, I'm going to read the whole thing. MR, SCAROLA: Yeah, thank you. BY MR, SIMPSON: Q. "We do not" -- MR. SCAROLA: It's short, so it would be helpful if you just read the whole thing. BY MR, SIMPSON: Q. Yeah. “We do not intend to inquire about any privileged communications or attorney work product. We do, however, have reason to believe that you have personally observed Jeffrey Epstein in the presence of underaged females, and we would like the opportunity to question you under oath about those observations. Thank you for ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 267 your anticipated cooperation. Signed, Jack Scarola." If you would like to -- A. Sure. Q. -- take a look at the letter to refresh yourself, you're welcome to. A. Great. Thanks. Okay. Q. Now, first, you're aware, are you not, that Professor Dershowitz answered that letter and said the assertion that he had observed Mr. Epstein in the presence of underage -- MR. SCAROLA: Females. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q._ -- females was not true? A. Something along those lines, yeah, Q. Yeah. And I will read it from that letter -- A. Okay. That would be good. Yeah, that would be great. Q. And "I have never" -- this is a letter from Mr. Dershowitz to Mr, Scarola, August 29th, 2011. “Dear Mr. Scarola, I have never personally observed Jeffrey Epstein in the presence of underaged females. I do not believe you have any reasonable basis for believing that I have. If you have ~- if you claim to have reason to ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 10/20/2015 01:08:15 PM HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010869

02:33:52 02:33:55, 02:33:58 02:33:59 02:34:01 02:34:01 02:34:03 On Ooh WO DH = 02:34:04 ozaa0e | 9 ozaa07 10 o23at0 11 o2sat1 12 ozaatra 13 czas 14 0234.21 15 023426 16 o23e31 17 o23435 18 oz3ea1 19 ozaaas 20 or3eas 21 orsaag 22 023451 23 ozaasa 24 oraess 25 02:34:56 02:34:57 02:34:58 02:35:00 02:35:01 02:35:03 02:35:06 On Oooh WH = 02:35:06 @ 02:35:06 02:35:08 1 0 02:35:08 1 1 02:36:09 1 2 02:35:10 1 3 02:36:11 1 4 02:35:42 1 5 02:35:14 1 6 02:35:16 1 7 02:35:17 1 8 02:35:20 1 9 02:35:23 20 02:36:26 21 02:35:27 22 02:35:29 23 02:35:31 24 02:35:31 25 10/20/2015 01:08:15 PM 268 believe, please provide me with any such reason. Iam certain I can demonstrate to you that it is false." Is that consistent with your recollection of the response? A. That sounds about right, yeah. Q. So Mr. Dershowitz did not ignore the letter; he responded to it, correct? A. I think that's right. Q. And go back to the first letter. A. But, now, if we are -- if we're talking about -- yeah, there's that one letter and now there's a response letter, right. Q. My question to you is: Does the statement to @ person that "we have reason to believe that you have personally observed another person in the presence of underage females and we would like to ask you about your observations,” put the recipient on notice that you, yourself, are accused of criminal conduct in abusing minors? A. Well, it puts you on notice that you're a potential, obviously, witness to this and then therefore you could have potential involvement. Let me give you a simple iHustration. It'll take about 20 seconds. If somebody says -- ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 269 Q. Well, let me back up. My first question, though, if you can answer the question. MR. SCAROLA: No. I'm sorry. The witness is entitled to complete his response. If you don't -- if you believe it to be unresponsive, you can move to strike it, but he’s entitled to complete it. MR. SIMPSON: He -- MR. SCAROLA: So go ahead and complete your response. MR. SIMPSON: Can we have a -- you can give an explanation, but a yes or no with an explanation. MR, SCAROLA: You already got that. Could we now have the completion of the response? THE WITNESS: Here's the simple illustration I think makes it pretty clear: If somebody says, we have observed you in the presence of a kilo of cocaine, we would like to question you about the presence -- about your observations of this, that doesn't directly state that you are a drug user or a drug dealer, but it certainly puts you on notice that you're associated with that criminal activity and somebody is going to question you about it. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 02:35:33 02:35:35 02:35:37 02:35:41 02:35:45 02:35:45 02:35:49 On Oa kh &W bw = 02:36:52 02:35:54 9 02:35:57 1 0 02:35:57 1 1 02:35:59 1 2 02:36:02 1 3 02:36:05 1 4 02:36:08 1 5 02:36:09 1 6 ozast2 17 02:36:14 1 8 02:36:16 1 9 02:36:18 20 02:36:22 21 02:36:28 22 02:36:34 23 o2zae33 24 02:36:33 25 02:36:37 02:38:39 02:36:39 02:36:41 02:36:44 02:36:47 02:36:50 On aah WH = 02:36:52 ozsese 9 02:36:59 10 oza702 11 ozar0s 12 o2ar09 13 ozs712 14 ozaris 15 02:37:21 16 ozar21 17 oz3723 18 ozsr24 19 ozar2r 20 o23730 21 o2z37:33 22 02:37:36 23 o2ar37 24 ozar3zs 25 Page 268 to 271 of 335 270 In the context of this case, to say, you have been observed in the -- in -- by numerous witnesses in the presence of a convicted sex offender and underage girls, and we would like to talk to you about those observations, I think that puts you on notice that you're in -- in -- in jeopardy of -- of criminal activity, particularly when you combine that with the fact that there is a duty to report child abuse in many states in this country, including the State of Florida. And so that if those observations were such that they would give rise to a reasonable inference that sex abuse was -- of children was going on and you'd be obligated to report it, as I think Mr. Dershowitz conceded yesterday, yes, you -- I think that puts you on notice that -- that those kinds of things are being alleged. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. So, first, the letter itself, the letter from Mr. Scarola simply says, you were -- you were personally -- you personally observed Jeffrey Epstein in the presence of underaged females, correct? A. Correct. Q. It does not say, you witnessed abuse of any ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 271 minor; we have reason to believe you observed abuse of minors? A. If those words do not appear there, but come on, we -- we know -- we know in the context of this case, when somebody is asking to take a deposition about your observation of young girls, they weren't talking about preparations for birthday parties. They were talking about sexual abuse of children. And that was what Mr. Dershowitz was going to be asked about. And he did not -- he did not take that opportunity to try to clear the record; Instead, we are, you know, here today, because among other reasons, he -- he -- he wasn't deposed then. Q. I want -- I want to comment. I'm just a little bit non -- nonplussed, so I want to come back to this again. A. Well, I'm -- I have to tell you, I'm a little bit nonplussed that somebody would say that letter doesn't put you on notice that you're potentially involved in criminal activity. I mean, come on. Q. 1 -- my question wasn't potentially involved in criminal activity. We disagree about whether it does that. A. Okay. I think it does. Q. I suspect you -- that's how you read it? ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 30 of 46 sheets HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010870

02:37:40 02:37:42 02:37:45 02:37:49 02:37:52 02:37:58 02:37:56 On Aon bh OND = 02:38:01 02:38:05 9 02:38:14 10 ozse19 14 023822 12 02:38:26 1 3 o2ce30 14 02:38:31 1 5 02:38:32 1 6 o2aess 17 02:38:37 1 8 02:38:41 1 9 o2:a843 20 02:38:46 21 ozae4s 22 02:38:49 23 02:38:54 24 o22e00 25 272 A. I think it puts you on notice in the context of a country which has required people to report the sexual abuse of children, and somebody wants to talk to you about your observations of a convicted sex offender with underage girls, that that's going to be one of the subjects that's going to be discussed, yes. Q. My question was -- my initial question was: Does -- do the statements in this letter put the reader on notice that you, personally, are accused of abusing minors yourself, not that you have in some knowledge or evidence that someone else did it, but that you, yourself, did it; is that a way to give fair notice? A. Well, in fair notice in what context? You know, is he on notice that a lawsuit is going to be filed the next day? Simply from that piece of -- that letter alone, they are on notice, you know -- I mean, I think that puts you on notice that there are serious allegations afoot and it would be in your best interest if you hadn't done anything, to show up, attend a deposition, let all the facts come out so that everybody can know them. Q. Would you agree that accusing someone of themselves abusing a minor is different than accusing someone of having knowledge that somebody else did it? ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 02:39:03 02:39:04 02:39:09 02:39:14 02:39:17 02:39:21 02:39:21 On Ooh WD =| 02:39:23 @ 02:39:25 o2z3e26 10 02:30:26 14 oxae26 12 023927 13 o23930 14 02:30:30 15 oza032 16 02:39:36 17 0239-41 18 023943 19 ozae4s 20 0230-48 21 02:39:62 22 023955 23 onsese 24 oz4001 25 31 of 46 sheets 273 A. Yes. Q. And to accuse someone of abusing a minor is a serious, serious accusation of criminal conduct, personal criminal conduct, not just failing to report somebody else, but you, yourself, are abusing people? A. Oh, yeah. MR. SCAROLA: Are you suggesting that that's not criminal conduct? MR. SIMPSON: I'm -- I'm -- my question stands. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. What is the answer to that? A. Itis a very serious charge, I agree. That's why we are all here today. Q. Okay. And -- and if you wanted to put someone on fair notice that they are accused themselves of being a sex offender, a criminal who has abused children, wouldn't you tell them that? A. That's a speculative question because that letter was designed to try to collect information about an international sex trafficking organization. And so as to -- you know, I'm not going to speculate as to why Mr. Scarola wrote it that way. But my sense, based on the public record is, that he was trying to get as much information as he could about what Jeffrey Epstein and ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 02:40:03 02:40:05 02:40:07 02:40:08 02:40:10 02:40:13 02:40:16 02:40:18 02:40:22 02:40:26 02:40:27 02:40:28 02:40:32 02:40:36 02:40:37 02:40:40 02:40:43 02:40:47 02:40:50 02:40:52 ON Ooh WH = @ 10 41 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 02:40:55 21 02:40:58 22 02:41:01 23 oxatos 24 ozaros 25 02:41:16 02:41:21 02:44:25 02:41:26 02:41:28 02:41:31 02:41:35 02:41:36 02:41:39 02:41:42 02:44:43 02:41:43 02:41:44 02:41:47 02:41:53 02:41:58 02:42:02 02:42:04 02:42:06 02:42:09 02:42:12 02:42:14 02:42:16 02:42:16 02:42:18 ON Oa bh wD 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 272 to 275 of 335 274 his criminal associates were doing. And he thought that Mr. Dershowitz would have information and was trying to collect that. Now, whether the -- the -- the tentacles of the organization would extend so that they wrapped around Mr, Dershowitz himself, I guess was the subject that -- that Mr, Scarola, I am assuming, was hoping to explore. But Mr, Dershowitz prevented that opportunity. Q. And Mr. Dershowitz, you knew, had been Mr. Epstein's attorney, correct? A. Correct. Q. And you knew, just as we have seen here today with multiple assertions of privilege, that he could not testify about anything he learned as an attorney? A. He could testify, and the fetter itself says, we are not going to ask you about any communications; we are going to ask you about observations of sex abuse by a convicted sex offender, and your personal knowledge of that. That would not have erased in the -- and Mr. Scarola's a very good attorney, and I'm sure all of his questions that we saw the last couple of days would have been very narrowly focused on observations about what this criminal organization was doing. Q. And so to the bottom line is that your view, your sworn testimony, this letter of August 23rd, 2011, ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 275 put Mr. Dershowitz, Professor Dershowitz, on fair notice that he was being accused of being a sex offender himself? A. We-- we have gone over this. I think it put him on fair notice that there were serious questions being raised about what he knew about this criminal organization, what the potential criminal responsibility he had for failure to report sexual abuse of a child, as well as other possibilities. MR. SIMPSON: I'm going to move to strike as nonresponsive. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. My question is a very narrow one, whether this letter, in your opinion, under oath, fairly put Mr. -- Professor Dershowitz on notice that he himself was accused of abusing minors. A. Again, that's a vague question, I've tried to give the best answer I can. That was certainly a potential area of questioning. I think that puts him on notice that it would have been in his best interest to appear to answer those questions. MR. SIMPSON: I'm going to object to the answer again as nonresponsive. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. It's a really simple question. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 10/20/2015 01:08:15 PM HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010871

02:42:20 02:42:23 02:42:26 02:42:27 02:42:28 02:42:32 02:42:35 92:42:37 OOnN OA BW HD a 02:42:38 ezazze 10 ozazae 11 o24z40 12 0242-40 13 o2aaat 14 eaaoaa 15 o2a2a8 16 ozazea 17 o2azss 18 ozazss 19 o2a2ss 20 erase 21 or4rse 22 o2raesa 23 0243.02 24. o24a03 25 02:43:09 62:43:18 02:43:23 02:43:27 02:43:29 02:43:33 02:43:34 ON Oa Rh WN = 02:43:37 @ 02:43:40 02:43:42 10 02:43:44 11 2437 12 02:43:50 13 o2a3s0 14 cass: 15 024352 16 ooaass 17 o2asse 18 oraanr 19 o24a02 20 coaaos 24 e2aaos 22 02:44:06 23 02:44:09 24 02:44:12 25 10/20/2015 01:08:15 PM 276 Does that letter put Mr. Dershowitz on fair notice that he's accused of being a sex offender himself? MR. SCAROLA: Objection. Repetitious. To the extent that you can improve upon the answer, you can improve upon the answer. If you can't, all you need to do is say that. THE WITNESS: I -- and I'll try to -- obviously, I want to be responsive -- BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. Let -- let me ask -- A. ++ to your question. Q. I'll ask you a different question. A. I don't think that's a yes or no question because of ~~ of you're including vague terms like fair notice and -- and those sorts of things. So -- but go ahead and ask your questions and I'll -- I mean, go ahead. . You're a former federal judge? Right. A former Supreme Court law -- law clerk? Yes. Professor at a law school? Yes. Reading as -- reading the language of this ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 277 letter, in your opinion, does the language itself put the recipient on notice that the recipient is accused of abusing minors himself? A. It puts him on notice that that is going to be a potential subject of inquiry at the -- at the -- the deposition. Q. So your answer then is, yes, it puts the -- the -- the person on notice; that's your reading? A. You're -- I think you're putting words in my mouth. You're -- you're trying to ask, you know, a question that on the one hand, you're suggesting is narrow, and on the other hand is broad. It -- I mean, this is probably the simplest way to answer that question. If I had gotten that letter, I would have said, schedule the deposition in the next 24 hours, and come on down here now, and I will be available for a week, That's what I would have said if I had gotten that letter. MR. SIMPSON: Move to strike as nonresponsive. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. Is it your testimony you can't answer yes or no whether that letter, on its face, puts the recipient on notice that the recipient is accused himself of ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 02:44:47 02:44:24 02:44:24 02:44:27 02:44:44 02:44:46 02:45:04 On OA kh @ NH = 02:48:09 ozas1 9 024513 10 o2z4s17 11 o2asta 12 o2s21 13 024524 14 024526 15 ozas28 16 ozas30 17 o245:33 18 024533 19 024534 20 024536 21 024537 22 0248:39 23 o2asan 24 02:45:45 25 02:45:47 02:45:51 02:45:55 02:48:57 02:45:58 02:46:01 02:46:04 ONO Oh WH = 02:46:08 @ 02:46:08 o2as:09 10 ozae10 11 o24612 12 024612 13 o24613 14 orders 15 02:46:17 16 o2aeta 17 ozas19 18 02:46:21 19 o24621 20 evaear 21 o246:31 22 o246:22 23 024635 24 02:46:37 25 278 having abused minors? Can you answer that: Yes or no? A. No. I think a yes-or-no answer would be misleading, given the context of this case. Q. You referred in your earlier testimony to -- strike that for a moment. You referred in your earlier testimony to an articie that appeared today regarding Professor Dershowitz's deposition testimony, correct? A. Idon't think so. Q. Okay. Are you aware that -- well, perhaps it was Miss McCawley who referred to it. Do you recall there being a reference this morning to an article being published about Professor Dershowitz's testimony? MS. McCAWLEY: Oh, I'm sorry. It was me. I objected to the extent -- only to the extent it revealed something public that had been stated in public. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. Okay. And I -- you recall that? A. Yeah, I recall the objection. I think there's an article that came out yesterday or a communication. I -- I -- you know, I can't remember the -- exactly where I -- I know that I received a communication, either through publication or in some ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 279 other way from the -- from the -- you know, I became aware that there was a statement that the -- what's the name of the outfit? It's the Business Investor -- MR. SCAROLA: Daily Business Review. THE WITNESS: Daily Business Review that was stating that David Boies was saying that the representations made by Mr. Dershowitz were false. MR. SCAROLA: I did just coach the witness. I apologize. THE WITNESS: Yeah. And, I'msorry, just for the name of that, so... BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. And you -- in your earlier testimony, you referred to it -- you didn't recall the name, but you referred to it as a reputable -- A. That's right. Q. -- publication? A. That's right. That's the one we are talking about, right. Q. Right. And in that article it states: "McCawley," referring to our colleague, "later issued a statement on Boies's behalf saying, because the discussions that Mr. Boies had with Mr. Dershowitz were expressly privileged ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 Page 276 to 279 of 335 32 of 46 sheets HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010872

02:46:40 02:46:43 02:46:46 02:48:50 02:46:54 02:46:55 02:46:55 ON GO OA bh & ND 02:46:56 02:46:58 9 02:47:00 1 0 02:47:00 1 1 02:47:03 1 2 02:47:06 1 3 02:47:06 1 4 02:47:07 1 5 02:47:08 1 6 02:47:12 1 7 02:47:16 1 8 02:47:20 1 9 02:47:23 20 02:47:26 21 02:47:29 22 02:47:30 23 02:47:32 24 02:47:35 25 02:47:39 02:47:44 02:47:43 02:47:44 02:47:46 02:47:46 02:47:48 On Oo kh Wh = 02:47:49 czars 9 o247s2 10 02:47:55 11 02:47:55 12 o2a7ss 13 o2arss 14 o2aaco 15 o24a02 16 o24s05 17 ozasos 18 02:48:10 19 ozasto 20 o24a10 21 oraeit 22 ore 23 024811 24 o2zas12 25 280 settlement discussions, Mr. Boies will not, at least at this time, describe what was actually said. However, Mr. Boies does state that Mr. Dershowitz's description of what was said is not true.” A. That's the one. Q. You read that? A. Yeah. I -- I learned of it -- yeah, I don't remember whether I read or how I got it, but yeah, that's the one. Q. In light of that statement by Mr. Boies, would you agree that any privilege has been waived? A. Iwould not. Q. So-- A. That's -- that’s a newspaper article. Q. It's a pub -- it's a quote. Let me clarify. That's a statement -- quoting a statement issued by Ms. McCawley and quoting Mr. Boies as saying, Mr. Dershowitz's description of what was said is not true, so that’s a public statement by Mr. Boies saying that Mr. Dershowitz's testimony is not true; is that a waiver in your view? A. No. And that would require -- I'm with -- I'm just putting you on notice, talking about notice, if you want me to, I could give you the law professor ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 281 answer as to why that's not a waiver. Off the top of my head, I can start talking about that. Q. No. I don't -- I don't need that. A. Right. That's why I just wanted to let you know, So... Q. But I really wanted to clarify -- and what I wanted to clarify was -- A. Ido not -- let me just be clear, so the record is clear: I absolutely do not believe that's a waiver and I could give you an extended answer, but I know time is drawing short -- Q. All right. A. -- so... Q. But you -- what I want to clarify is that, notwithstanding that statement, you will continue to answer all my questions about the substance of discussions with Mr. Boies; you're continuing not to answer, you're continuing -- MS. McCAWLEY: Yes -- MR. SCAROLA: You just said you -- MS. McCAWLEY: -- I believe -- MR. SCAROLA: -- continue to answer. MS. McCAWLEY: I'm sorry. MR. SIMPSON: I'm sorry. MS. McCAWLEY: Continue not to answer. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 33 of 46 sheets 02.48:13 02:48:15 02:48:15 02:48:16 02:48:19 02:48:22 02:48:22 on Om hb &@ Nh 02:48:25 ozaaz7 9 024828 10 02:48:31 1 1 ozaa33 12 oz4eas 13 ozaeas 14 ozaeze 15 ozan3e 16 ozaa30 17 ozaear 18 0248-43 19 ozaear 20 o248-47 24 o2aeso 22 o24e51 23 024852 24 oz4es3 25 02:48:57 02:48:58 02:49:01 02:49:03 02:49:05 02:49:05 02:49:08 On Om bh & HN 02:49:10 @ 02:49:12 o2ao14 10 czas 11 ozaais 12 ozaora 13 02:49:23 14 ozaa.26 15 o24930 16 ozaoze 17 ozao26 18 o249a7 19 024033 20 o24e39 21 o2aga2 22 024950 2S ozaos2 24 o2aoss 25 282 MR. SCAROLA: Why don't you start over again? MR, SIMPSON: No. I just want -- MS. McCAWLEY: We disagree with your characterization of that as a waiver. It was a statement that was issued in order to stop the waivers that Mr. Dershowitz was trying to engage in, and we -- we don't agree that's a waiver and we will not allow any testimony regarding those communications. MR. SIMPSON: Okay. I disagree with the position and the characterization, but I just wanted to clarify on the record, I didn't have to ask those questions again. MR. SCAROLA: Sure. MS. McCAWLEY: I understand. MR. SIMPSON: And, obviously, our position is that if it hadn’t already been -- if it hadn't already been waived -- either it wasn't privileged or hadn't been waived, it's now waived. THE WITNESS: And my -- just -- MR. SIMPSON: I don't have a question. THE WITNESS: I know, but I -- but I think now in light of, since the record has these characters, I just want to put one sentence into ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 283 the record, which is: It doesn't seem to me that an attorney can inject into a deposition confidential settlement proceedings, have somebody deny that, and then say, aha, they're no longer confidential settlement proceedings, so that's -- MR. SIMPSON: There's no question pending. I move to strike the comments. THE WITNESS: Right. I just didn't want your comments to -~ to reflect back on my earlier answer. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. I want to go back, Mr. Cassell, get back to yesterday's exhibits. I'm going to hand you what was marked yesterday as Cassell Exhibit Number 2, which is the joinder motion, and when you have that in front of you -- A. Got it. Q. Do you have that in front of you? A. Ido. Q. Allright. Would you -- find my copy of it -- if you would turn to page -- bottom of page 3, part of -- top of page 4; do you have that? A. Got it. Q. All right. I'm going to read it. Tell me if ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 Page 280 to 283 of 335 10/20/2015 01:08:15 PM HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010873

286 ozaass 1 I've read it correctly. 025221 1 speak words. They both have the same physical ability ozaoss | 2 A. Okay. 028228 2 to speak the English language, yes. osess 3 Q. “Epstein also sexually trafficked the ozs225 3 Q. And, in fact, before, at least three years ozas9 4 then-minor Jane Doe" -- and that's Virginia Roberts, 28231 4 before December 30th, 2014, she had the ability to be exsoe § correct? 025235 § quoted in an article, more than one article, in the 025002 § A. Yes. 025232 § Daily Mail in London about her experiences, correct? ozso03 7 Q. -- "making her available for sex to ozszae 7 A. That's correct. ozs00s 8 politically-connected and financially-powerful people. ozs243 8 Q. Andam I correct that as of December 30th, 028009 9 Epstein's purposes in lending Jane Doe, along with other ozs24aa 9 2014, you didn't know whether she was paid for that ozs2s0 10 interview or not? ozsas1 11 A. Iwasn't sure. That's right. ozs283 12 Q. And after December 30th, 2014, the references 028258 13 to Prince Andrew and Professor Dershowitz generated 025303 14 international publicity; isn't that true? o2so14 10 young girls, to such powerful people were to ingratiate 025020 11 himself with them for business, personal, political, and oz5024 12 financial gain, as well as to obtain potential blackmail 028022 13 information.” ozs0:30 14 Did I read that correctly? ozs0:31 15 A. You did. oso31 16 Q. What did you mean by “obtain potential 028035 17 blackmail information"? ozsoze 18 A. Okay. Let me just double-check. o2sos1 19 Once the criminal organization had put the ozs307 15 A. Okay. Which -- yes, I mean, in a general 25311 16 sense, I could ask which allegations, but these 28313 17 allegations did generate publicity, certainly. o2sat6 18 Q. Yes. The allegations in your joinder motion ovsate 19 that Prince Andrew and Professor Dershowitz had abused 025324 20 ~~ Virginia Roberts, then known as Jane Doe Number 3, 28328 24 generated a firestorm of publicity; did it not? 025330 22 A. It generated a lot of publicity, yes. orsaa2 23 Q. And within days of that, you were -- you were 02:83:33 24 participating in attempting to arrange an interview with 028338 25 ABC News; isn't that true? ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 025045 20 bait out, so to speak, to various people, and they took o2s049 24 the bait that -- you know, I'm -- I'm speaking o2s040 22 colloquially here. These are -- these are young girls 025034 23 who are being sexually abused. Once the criminal o2soss 24 organization had gotten people to sexually abuse osose 25 these -- these young girls, at that point, they had ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 285 287 estot 1 information that they could use to blackmail those orsa39 1 A. That -- within days of -- the chronology is ozs02 2 people and -- and then get favors in exchange. o2zs343 2 important here: The allegations were filed in this o2rsi0 | 3 And that's Epstein at the head of the o2s345 3 pleading on December 30th. Several days after that, estos 4 organization would be the one who would benefit most | oz24e 4 Mr. Dershowitz then took to the airwaves to denounce, os111 5 directly from the black -- the blackmail information. o2s353 § not only Brad and me, but -- but particularly of concern ozstir2 6 Q. And by “blackmail information,” do you mean costs 6& to me was Virginia Roberts, this victim of sex osii7 7 that Mr, Epstein then had information that he could ass 7 trafficking. 028119 8 threaten to disclose if the other person didn't do what ozsaso 8 And, at that point, as one of -- as one of 025124 9 Epstein asked therm to do? oscar 9 her attorneys, I was looking for a way to respond to o2si2a 10 A. Precisely. aseos 10 that media assault on her by Mr. Dershowitz. 025126 141 Q. As of December 30th, 2014, if Miss Roberts ozsaoo 11 MR. SIMPSON: Move to strike as 025409 12 nonresponsive, osso0 13 BY MR. SIMPSON: orsats 14 Q. Did -- within 24 hours of this pleading being 025422 15 filed, there was publicity about the allegations against 028427 16 Prince Andrew and Mr. Dershowitz -- Professor 025431 17 Dershowitz; isn't that correct? ost32 12 had access to publicity, she had exactly the same ezst36 13 ability to blackmail people; isn't that true? oasis 14 A. Absolutely not, A billionaire has far more asia 15 resources than a victim of child sex abuse, particularly o2s1as 16 one that has been forced into hiding in Australia to ozsiaa 17 escape the criminal organization. ozsis1 18 So for you to suggest that Virginia Roberts 02432 18 A. I don’t know the exact time frame, but 028434 19 that -- you know, roughly that time frame sounds about ozsa36 20 = right. o2se3e 21 Q. If Mr. -- if Professor Dershowitz had never 028152 19 had the same ability to blackmail somebody as Jeffrey o2s156 20 Epstein is, I think, preposterous. o2s200 21 Q. As of -- Miss -- Miss Roberts had the same 028203 22 ability as Jeffrey Epstein to reveal publicly the names 025212 23 of the people who she says sexually abused her, as did 028433 22 said anything, wouldn’t you expect that these 025442 23 allegations as to Prince Andrew, in particular, and o2s217 24 Mr. Epstein; isn't that true? 28447 24 Professor Dershowitz would get substantial publicity? o2sas0 25 A. There was -- there was -- ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 (954) 331-4400 10/20/2015 01:08:15 PM Page 284 to 287 of 335 34 of 46 sheets o2se19 25 A. You're talking about physical ability to HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010874

02:54:54 02:54:53 02:54:55 02:84:57 02:54:59 02:54:59 02:55:01 ON OM & WD 02:55:02 c<s] 02:55:03 02:55:03 10 ozssos 14 o2se0e 12 02:55:09 13 02:55:09 14 02:55:09 15 02:55:11 16 02:55:13 17 02:55:44 18 ozssis 19 ozssi7 20 02:55:18 21 02:55:24 22 02:56:23 23 02:55:25 24 02:55:25 25 02:55:25 02:55:27 02:55:27 02:55:28 02:55:33 02:55:33 02:55:34 ont onnh WD = 02:55:34 wo 02:55:35 ozss3e 10 ozssae 14 025530 12 ozss30 13 ozssao 14 ozssa1 15 ozssaa 16 orssa3 17 ossas 18 ozsss2 19 o2sssa 20 o2se02 21 028603 22 028606 23 025610 24 028612 25 35 of 46 sheets 288 MR. SCAROLA: Excuse me. To the extent the question calls for speculation, I object. MR. SIMPSON: No. I'm asking for his state of mind when he filed this document. THE WITNESS: There's no doubt that -- MR. SCAROLA: So the question is: At the time of the filing -- MR. SIMPSON: Please -- please don't coach the witness. MR. SCAROLA: No, I'm not coaching him. I just want to understand the question. You're asking what his state of mind was at the time of filing? MR. SIMPSON: Did he -- did he anticipate -- MR. SCAROLA: Because the other question was: What do you -- what's your position today. MR. SIMPSON: Mr. Scarola, really. MR. SCAROLA: That's -- that's a different question. So I just want to know which one you're asking. Do you want to know his state of mind then, or his state of mind today? MR. SIMPSON: I will take that as an objection to the form of the question. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 289 BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. Asof -- MR, SCAROLA: It's a request fora clarification of an ambiguous question. MR. SIMPSON: It's coaching the witness. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. As of -- A. Yeah, I don't need any coaching. I mean... Q. Let me ask the question. As of December 30th -- that’s true -- as of -- A. Right -- Q. -- we agree that's coaching. A. -- but that wasn’t coaching. That wasn't coaching, so the suggestion that it’s coaching is -- is not fair. Q. Okay. We disagree. As of December 30th, 2014, did you anticipate that naming Prince Andrew in a public filing as having abused Virginia Roberts would generate substantial publicity? A. "Substantial" is a debatable word, but certainly, it's going to generate publicity, yes. Publicity about the allegations. Q. Yes. And -- and the allegations are that ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 02:56:15 02:56:19 02:56:19 02:56:21 02:56:21 02:56:25 02:56:31 02:56:32 02:56:35 02:56:39 02:56:39 02:56:42 02:56:42 02:56:48 02:56:48 02:56:49 02:56:51 02:56:56 02:56:57 02:56:57 On nn bk WD = 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 0287-00 21 02:57:05 22 02:57:40 23 o2s71s 24 ozsr1a 25 02:57:20 02:57:21 02:57:22 02:57:28 02:57:30 02:57:32 02:57:32 02:57:34 02:57:35 02:57:37 02:57:39 02:57:42 02:57:44 02:57:48 02:67:52 02:57:55 02:57:58 02:57:59 02:58:01 02:58:04 02:58:07 02:58:10 02:58:14 02:58:18 02:58:24 oon omh WN — 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 288 to 291 of 335 290 Prince Andrew had sexually abused Virginia Roberts, correct? A. That was one of the allegations in here, sure. Q. And the allegations that Professor Dershowitz had sexually abused Virginia Roberts, correct? A. That's right. It was in a -- what we were -- what we were starting to document and allege here was that terrible things that Epstein's criminal organization had done. Q. Let me refer you to page 6 -- A. Okay. Q. -- of your filing. It's the first full paragraph. A. Yep. Q. I'm going to read it. "Epstein also trafficked Jane Doe Number 3 for sexual purposes to many other powerful men.” A. Okay. Q. "Including numerous prominent American politicians, powerful business executives, foreign presidents, a well-known prime minister, and other world leaders. Jane -- Epstein required Jane Doe Number 3 to describe the events that she had with these men so that he could potentially blackmail them." ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 291 Did I read that correctly? A. You did. Q. With respect to blackmail, the ability to blackmail, is that the same potential we talked about a moment ago in your testimony? A. Sure. Q. And you're referring there to -- A. Roughly, yeah. I mean, if there's something that you want clarified, go ahead and clarify it. Q. I just -- I just wanted to make sure I understand correctly that when you refer that -- to Epstein requiring Virginia Roberts to describe these events so that he could potentially blackmail them, what you had in mind was, Epstein wanted to know what Virginia Roberts did with these men so that he had the ability to threaten to disclose it if they didn’t do what he wanted them to do? A. That was -- that was part of it, yes. Q. And isn't it true you could have accomplished -- in terms of furthering Virginia Roberts's legal interests, you could have accomplished exactly the same thing by saying Epstein also trafficked ~- trafficked Jane Doe Number 3 for sexual purposes to other well-known men, period? A. No, I don't think so. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 10/20/2015 01:08:15 PM HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010875

02:58:26 02:58:30 02:58:34 02:58:38 02:58:42 02:58:43 02:58:43 ON DOA & & NH 02:58:47 ozsesa 9 02:58:52 10 o2sess 11 02:58:55 412 02:58:57 13 02:58:58 414 o2so02 15 028002 16 orsooa 17 o2s907 18 02:59:14 19 o25013 20 ozsota 21 o2zsote 22 02:59:19 23 02:59:23 24 o2se.23 25 02:59:31 02:59:34 02:59:38 02:59:40 02:59:42 02:59:45 02:59:48 On Om akh WH = 02:59:51 orsos2 9 o2zsesa 10 ozsos7 11 os0001 12 030004 13 03:00:07 14 aso011 15 as:oo12 16 03:00:14 17 oxoaa 18 osoaa 19 03:04:20 20 0304-24 21 03:04:27 22 03:04:28 23 o30a2s 24 ox0a20 25 10/20/2015 01:08:15 PM Q. Okay. You felt that it furthered her legal interests to specify American politicians, powerful business executives, foreign presidents, a well-known prime minister and other world leaders; that was your -- you -- you believe that furthered her legal interest? A. Yes. Q. Did you also anticipate that that would titilate the Press, so to speak, that there would be a lot of speculation on who these people are? A. That wasn't the -- that wasn't the focus of the -~ those comments, no. Q. You said it wasn't the focus. Did you realize it would happen? A. Sure. I mean, this was a case that had been already ~~ this litigation had been going on at that point for seven years and lots of people were following it. This is -~ this case is one of the most egregious examples of a violation of Crime Victims' Rights in the history of this country. And so against that context, yes, there were going to be people interested in every word that was going into this pleading. Whether we had gone more broadly or more narrowly than what we did, people were going to be interested in this. Q. And as of December 30th of 2014, Miss Roberts ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 293 had the same ability to disclose who these individuals were publicly, as did Jeffrey Epstein, correct, because she had personal knowledge of who they were? A. She had the ability to speak the words, but, again, I think it's preposterous to say that a victim of sex trafficking has the same power as the sex trafficker to disclose information. For example, Virginia Roberts could be attacked, and I think as we were talking about yesterday, we have seen evidence of the kind of attack that powerful people can mount against the victims of sex trafficking. So to say that the young women in sex trafficking schemes have the same power as their traffickers to do this ~~ I'm sorry. I'm going to have to take a break. THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are going off the video record, 11:32 a.m. (Thereupon, a recess was taken.) THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are back on the video record, 11:36 a.m. BY MR. SIMPSON: Had you finished your answer, Mr. Cassell? I think I had, Okay. Thank you. Thank you for letting me take a ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 POP DO 03:04:34 1 030432 2 03:04:32 3 03:0434 4 o3s0s37 | 5 03:04:37 6 a30s33 7 as0533 8 ososas Q 0305.34 10 03.0836 14 03.0533 12 03:05:39 413 030542 14 03.0504 15 a305a7 16 ososse 17 a30ss2 18 azosss 19 03:05:58 20 o30600 24 03.0602 22 030605 23 0306.05 24 o306-08 25 03:06:11 03:06:14 03:06:15 03:06:18 03:06:18 03:06:20 03:06:22 ON OD OA & G&G NH 03:06:27 030628 9 03.0630 10 030632 11 030635 12 03.0637 13 ox0eat 14 030644 15 asoe4s 16 o306s0 17 o30eso 18 03.0652 19 os0ess 20 o30701 24 o3o703 22 o307-06 23 0307.09 24 osori2 25 Page 292 to 295 of 335 break. I appreciate that. Q. Okay. MR. SCAROLA: Could you just read back the last question for me? I just want to orient myself as to where we are. Thank you. (Thereupon, a portion of the record was read by the reporter.) MR. SCAROLA: Yeah, I didn't I think the answer was -~ THE WITNESS: I guess | was mid-sentence, so think I will just stick with the same word, preposterous. And one -- one thing that occurred to me during the break, in the context of this case, is that there had been allegations that Epstein was part of the -- the sex trafficking organization, had video cameras mounted throughout many of his -- his mansions. And so, whereas a young woman could say, or a young girl could say, look, I was a victim of sex abuse, people would attack her; people wouldn't believe her, that unless she had, you know, corroborating evidence, people would say, well, look, it didn't happen. And so Epstein had managed to collect apparently a lot of videotapes and other kinds of ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 295 information that would have been -- given him the ability to make the blackmail kinds of charges that the girls that he was trafficking would -- would not have had the ability to do. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. Mr. Cassell, didn't you testify yesterday that any videotapes from Mr. Epstein’s house had been destroyed? A. I-- when I used the word “destroyed,” I probably should have been more precise. They had been concealed from law enforcement, is what I meant. That when Palm Beach Police Department went up to the Epstein mansion, they found surveillance cameras and other cameras. I can't remember exactly where the cameras were, but they found surveillance cameras, and when they looked for the tapes associated with those cameras, I used the word "destroyed"; and as I say, I probably should have said they were missing. And so they were never able to locate those -~- those missing videotapes. Q. Soas of December 30th of 2014, to your knowledge, there were no videotapes available? A. There were no videotapes available to law enforcement or to Brad and his pro bono crime victim attorneys to help document our case. We were trying to get those and we are continuing to try to get those, ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 36 of 46 sheets HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010876

03:07:13 03:07:18 03:07:21 03:07:23 03:07:26 03:07:27 03:07:28 on A ah ON = 03:07:30 is) 03:07:33 03:07:33 10 ox07a3 14 030726 12 030728 13 oxo742 14 oxoras 15 oxor4a 16 oso749 17 03:07:53 18 osorss 19 030755 20 oxo7se 24 03:08:01 22 03:08:07 23 oxos10 24 03.081 25 03:08:17 03:08:22 03:08:22 03:08:25 03:08:26 03:08:29 03:08:31 ON Oak @ DH = 03:08:32 is) 03:08:34 a30827 10 o30e4o 14 0308-41 12 ox0849 13 o30ss1 14 03:08:58 15 osos02 16 o30e02 17 o3x09:10 18 o0914 19 03:09:21 20 030921 21 030921 22 030928 23 o3.0030 24 03.0932 25 37 of 46 sheets 296 but, obviously, Epstein and his criminal associates have had the ability to -- to destroy the evidence that's been -- that we have been trying to gather. Q. And in -- in your answer a couple of questions -- A. 1I--I'msorry. I shouldn't say "destroyed." They have been able to conceal would probably be a more accurate term, the -- the evidence that we are trying to gather. Q. In my answer -- in my answer -- A. Yeah. Q. -- in the question and answer, your answer to my question a couple of questions ago, you talked about whether Mr. Epstein and Virginia Roberts would have the same or equal ability to disclose -- A. Right. Q. -- what these prominent politicians, et cetera, had done, correct? A. Correct. Q. Without attempting to make any comparison, you would agree, would you not, that as of December 30th, 2014, Miss Roberts had the ability to name the names of the people who are referenced in this document? A. Physical ability, yes. Q. And -- well, let me ask this: You say a ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 well-known prime minister. Is that Prime Minister Barak? MS. McCAWLEY: I'm gonna instruct you not to reveal any attorney/client communications you had with Virginia Roberts on the specifics of her counsel to you about these individuals. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. Is one of the other -- one of the powerful business executives, Les Wexner? MS. McCAWLEY: Again, same instruction. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. Okay. Now, you mentioned yesterday -- well, a moment ago, you testified that these -- in your view, these allegations about other powerful men furthered Miss Roberts’ legal position in the case, correct? A. Yes. Q. And it's also your position, I assume, that the allegations regarding Professor Dershowitz and Prince Andrew furthered Miss Roberts' legal position; is that right? A. Absolutely. Q. Does the fact that Judge Marra struck those allegations as impertinent, scandalous, and completely irrelevant to the case, cause you to reassess? MR. SCAROLA: Excuse me. Is that -- is that ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 03:09:34 03:09:36 03:09:37 03:09:39 03:09:41 03:09:45 03:09:46 ON MD Oh WON = 03:09:48 iis) 03:08:50 03:09:50 10 03:09:54 11 oxooss 12 031000 13 oxr001 14 o3:10.01 15 0310001 16 03:10:01 17 oxto0s 18 o3:1005 19 031009 20 o3to13 21 03:10:15 22 03:10:17 23 031020 24 osto2s 25 03:10:27 03:10:28 03:10:29 03:10:31 03:10:31 03:10:32 03:70:34 On Oak WH «a 03,10:35 is) 03:10:37 oxt038 10 031041 14 oatoas 12 ostoss 13 oxt0s2 14 oxtos2 15 03:40:55 16 oattoo 17 oat. 18 oatto4 19 oatsor 20 03:41:10 21 ott 22 oats 23 oat? 24 otis 25 Page 296 to 299 of 335 intended to be a direct quote? MR. SIMPSON: Back up. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. What is your understanding of Judge Marra's ruling with respect to these allegations about Professor Dershowitz and Prince Andrew? A. That they were premature. Q. That's your understanding of his order? A. Yes. Q. Okay. A. And I-- maybe I should -- I see some skepticism there, so let me explain why I think those allegations -- Q. Yeah. Well, we can pull -~ A. -- are appropriate. Q. ~~ we will pull out the order itself -- A. Sure. Q. _-- at the appropriate time, but first, your understanding is that the judge didn't find that those allegations, at the time they were made, were so irrelevant to the case, that they should be stricken from the public record? A. Inthat pleading at that time, remember, we had in our -- our brief -- let me explain the -- the nine reasons why we thought that those allegations were ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 299 relevant to the case, since I think your question calls for that. Q. Are those the nine reasons you gave yesterday? A. No, I didn't have a chance to. Q. Are they the nine reasons that are set forth in your -- in your brief? A. They are. Those are the nine reasons that are set forth in the brief. Q. Okay. And -- and Judge Marra had that brief in front of him when he held that, these allegations were so not relevant to the issues before the court, that they would be stricken and not part of the public record? A. At that time, in that particular pleading -- I think you're mischaracterizing Judge Marra's ruling in its entirety, He specifically said that the allegations could be reasserted, if they were relevant to issues that are -- that were coming up. And so, in following that ruling, we went to the U.S, Attorney's Office, propounded discovery requests and said, look, we believe you're sitting on information that Dershowitz was, you know, connected with the -- with the criminal trafficking here; we would like you to produce those documents. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 10/20/2015 01:08:15 PM HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010877

03:41:20 03:11:22 03:14:26 03:11:27 03:14:28 03:11:32 03:41:36 On Aah @ HH «= 03:11:39 iis} 03:14:42 03:41:44 4 0 03:11:46 4 4 03:14:49 4 2 03:14:53 4 3 03:14:57 1 4 03:42:01 1 5 03; 12:08 1 6 03:12:44 1 7 03:12:17 1 8 03:12:18 1 9 03:12:20 20 03:12:24 21 03:42:24 22 03:12:25 23 03:12:28 24 03:12:31 25 03:12:34 03:42:38 03:12:39 03:12:41 03:12:44 03:12:46 03:12:48 OnN Anh OH = 03:12:51 @ 03:12:52 03:12:57 41 0 03:43:00 41 1 03:13:00 1 2 03:13:02 4 3 0313.03 14 03:13:04 1 5 03:13:05 1 6 03:13:07 1 7 03:43:12 1 8 03:43:13 1 9 03:13:14 20 03:13:15 2 1 03:13:19 22 03:43:27 23 03:13:34 24 03:13:37 25 10/20/2015 01:08:15 PM 300 And rather than say, hey, we don't have any such documents, the U.S. Attorney's Office gave us the response indicating, to our view, that there were such documents, and as you know, since you're one of Mr. Dershowitz's attorneys, we have drafted a pleading now to try and collect that information, that law enforce -~ federal law enforcement agencies have collected, and -- and to figure out the appropriate way to litigate that so that we can get that information and move forward with the case. That's just one example of -- of how the allegations, if they were premature at that point, are no longer going to be premature as the case moves along. Q. Is it or is it not your understanding that Judge Marra ruled that the allegations in this pleading in front of you were so irrelevant to the pleading in which they were stated, that they should be stricken from the public record? A. Inthat particular pleading at that particular time, that’s right. Q. Does that cause you to reassess, in any way, having filed this document? A. Well, I think certainly as a tactical matter, we should have reserved the -- the allegations for -- for another motion. I -- 1 think that's -- you know, ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 301 certainly, with the -- you're -- now, we are now sort of speculating, would we have done something different if we knew that? And the answer to that is, sure, we would have tried to do something that Judge Marra thought was the appropriate way to handle it, so... Q. And Judge Marra also reminded counsel of their Rule 11 obligations; didn't he? A, That's right. Yeah. Q. And did it cause you to question, not tactics, but whether you were acting properly in filing this? MR. SCAROLA: Excuse me. I -- MR. SIMPSON: I'm just asking if it caused him to reassess. MR. SCAROLA: I understand what you're asking, and you're asking him about his mental processes in connection with pending litigation. That's work product. I instruct you not to answer that question. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. allright. You testified yesterday that one reason that you found the filing of the complaint on behalf of Jane Doe 102, who is Virginia Roberts, by the -- Bob Josefsberg and -- and why that was significant was that Bob Josefsberg had been selected by ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 03:13:41 03:13:45 03:13:48 03:13:51 03:13:54 03:14:01 03:14:03 On Oa” hb @ bw 03:14:04 @ 03:14:05 03:14:11 4 0 osta1a 14 03:14:20 1 2 03:14:25 1 3 ost4a27 14 03:14:30 1 5 03:14:32 4 6 03:14:35, 1 7 03:14:37 1 8 03:14:39 1 9 03:14:43 20 03:14:45 21 03:14:45 22 03:14:47 23 03:14:49 24 03:14:53 25 03:14:55 03:14:56 03:15:00 03:15:04 03:15:07 03:15:12 03:15:17 On Oanhb WKH =a 03:15:19 @ 03:15:19 o3ts21 10 031523 11 03:15:26 12 031527 13 o3is23 14 o3ts31 15 osts33 16 ostsas 17 ostsas 18 osts3s 19 o3x1542 20 oxtsa4 21 031850 22 03:15:52 23 031585 24 oss 25 Page 300 to 303 of 335 302 the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida to represent victims, correct? A. Yes. Through the -- through the NPA, yeah, there was an apparatus that led to his selection. Q. And does that answer reflect holding the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida in that office in high regard? A. Sure. Q. Do you contend that at the time the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida negotiated the NPA, they knew that Professor Dershowitz, himself, had been involved in abuse of minors? A. Idon't know exactly what information they had. I do know that we have been propounding discovery requests on all of these subjects, including Professor Dershowitz's involvement, when the U.S. Attorney knew. They are asserting privilege over that. I would wish they would waive the privilege or at least provide the information to pro bono crime victims’ attorneys that they have, so we can get to the bottom of this. But there have been, you know, a nonstop series of assertions of privilege and other barriers interposed against us in this case, and I think inappropriately so, and -- and we have been arguing that ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 303 now for a number of years. Q. Would you agree with me that if the United States Attorney's Office had been aware that Professor Dershowitz had engaged in sexual misconduct with minors, or himself had observed Mr. Epstein do so, that it would have been improper and unethical for them to let Mr. -- Professor Dershowitz negotiate the terms of the NPA with them? A. If they had direct personal knowledge of that, sure. I mean, the -- the -- but the realities are a little bit more complicated in that Professor Dershowitz, over the last couple of days as frequently -- has frequently used the word "continuum," and so if they were certain of that, it absolutely would have -- would have been unethical. The question is: Well, what if they had a suspicion or what if -- you know, a reasonable suspicion or a possible suspicion. Those are the kinds of dimensions that you've got to, you know, take into account in the real world about, you know, what they -- what they would have done. I mean, it seems pretty clear, for example, that at some point, you know, later on, they got a black book in which Professor Dershowitz's name had been circled. Now, what they did with that information, I -- ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 38 of 46 sheets HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010878

304 estcoo 1 Idon't know. oteoo 2 Q. And what they did with the fact that Courtney o3t604 3 Love and Donald Trump were circled, you don't know also, 31608 4 correct? osieo08 | 5 A. That's right. Fair point. atsor 6 Q. But somehow it's suspicious as to oste10 7 Mr. Dershowitz, but not as to anyone else? otei2 8 MR. SCAROLA: Objection. Argumentative. oste12 9 THE WITNESS: And I'm -- I'm glad to argue on oste1a 10 that point, let me, because they -- osste:14 11 MR. SIMPSON: I'll withdraw the question. oate1s 12 THE WITNESS: All right. Because I would osteitis 13 have a -- oxteis 14 MR, SIMPSON: Let -- oste17 15 THE WITNESS: -- a substantial argument on oste18 16 that. ost620 17 MR. SIMPSON: I -- 1 will withdraw the o3te20 18 question. 031620 19 BY MR, SIMPSON: 03:16:28 20 Q. With respect, again, to the -- 031630 21 MR. SCAROLA: And I'll withdraw the osrtes2 22 objection. osr1632 23 MR. SIMPSON: Thank you. 031633 24 BY MR. SIMPSON: ostese 25 Q. At the time that you filed this joinder ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 305 osteao 1 motion, Exhibit 2, you knew that the United States estes «2 Attorney's Office had denied having any contact -- any osteaa. 3 documents reflecting any contact with Prince Andrew; atest 4 isn't that true? ostes1 5 A. They had -- there were -~ there were various aisss 6 discovery requests that had been propounded, and I think oies9 % with regard to one, they had denied, and my recollection 031701 8 is with regard to another, where there had been an 031706 9 assertion of privilege. o3i707 10 Q. Is it not true, that before December 30th, o3:1700 11 2014, in response to a request asking the government: 031715 12 Are there any documents reflecting contact with -- by 031720 13 Prince Andrew regarding the NPA, the government 031724 14 represented, there were none? 031726 15 A. That -- with regard to the -- you're talking o231730 16 about RFPs, request for production of documents, I 031732 17 believe that's -- I believe that's correct. o3i733 18 Q. And on December 30th, 2014, knowing that, you 031738 19 named Prince Andrew in this motion, correct? oxs74o 20 A. Correct. os7a1 24 Q. And is it your testimony that you believe 031748 22 that Prince Andrew somehow attempted to influence the 03:17:52 23 negotiations of an NPA in the United States as to osi7se 24 Mr. Epstein? ossi7s7 25 A. I don't have direct evidence of that, but I ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 39 of 46 sheets 03:17:59 03:18:02 03:18:04 03:18:07 03:18:09 03:18:15 03:18:19 On AoOkh WH = 03:18:23 03:18:23 9 03:18:25 1 0 03:18:27 1 1 03:18:30 1 2 03:18:31 1 3 o31e34 14 03:18:36 1 5 63:18:38 1 6 03:18:40 4 7 63:18:41 1 8 03:18:43 1 9 03:18:47 20 03:18:49 21 03:18:54 22 03:18:54 23 03:18:56 24 03:48:57 25 03:19:06 03:19:03 03:18:07 03:19:08 03:19:41 03:19:12 03:19:16 On OO kh ON = 03:19:20 @ 03:19:22 osta24 10 o3sto27 11 03:19:29 12 o31932 13 o31033 14 oste3s 15 o3to38 16 ostaae 17 ostea2 18 osteas 19 os:to-40 20 o3tose 21 o3t9sa 22 ostosa 23 osross 24 os:teso 25 Page 304 to 307 of 335 306 certainly believe I have a good-faith basis, along with my co-counsel, to explore that subject, and try to see how someone who is fifth in line to the British Throne might have been able to use the contacts and power that he has to influence a -- a -- a disposition in this -- in the Crime Victims’ Rights Act case that it would have been favorable to one of his friends and potentially favorable to himself. Q. And -- and you have that view, notwithstanding that the government had represented they have no record of that? A. They didn’t -- no, no, no, no. Let's not -~ not -- let's not slip and try to get me to admit something that is not what the record reflects. The government said they did not have documents. They did not say that they didn't have any information along those lines. To the contrary: They asserted a whole series of privileges every time we tried to get information along these lines. So the fact that they didn't have a letter, signed Prince Andrew, saying, please do the best you can for this convicted sex offender is one thing. That's the request for production of documents. But they never said that they -- they -- that ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 307 something along these lines had never happened and, to the contrary, we were faced with assertions of privilege over roughly, if I remember correctly, about 10,000 pages of documents where a whole host of privileges were being asserted. Q. ‘Do you think it's credible that the United States Attorney's Office would be discussing an NPA with a member of the British Royal Family? A. Not directly, but there certainly are possibilities of surrogates. I -- my -~ somebody who is that powerful certainly wouldn't go out at it directly. What they would probably do is try to find the best lawyers they could around the United States and -- and, you know, and some of the, you know, big-named lawyers and try to bring them in there to -- to work a deal. That's, I think, how, you know, we're -- you're asking -- your question is asking for speculation and I'm saying that -- that based on, how would you influence a deal in an American criminal justice system? You go try to get the best defense lawyers you could and see -- you know -- you know, figure out which political party was in power; and try to get people who are well-connected to that political party, things like that. So that's the way that I think somebody might ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 10/20/2015 01:08:15 PM HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010879

308 32001 1 have gone about trying to -- to put pressure for a -- a 032003 2 favorable plea deal. o32006 3 Q. And that's what you just referred to as 032008 4 speculation, correct? osz000 5 A. Well, your question said: Well, how would o3201 § they go do this? And I -- I-- I gave you my answer as a2 7 to how I think somebody could well do that, yes. x21 8 Q. And -- and your pleading doesn't allege how 032022 9 someone would do it; it alleges that they did it; isn't 032026 10 that correct? 032027 11 A. Did what? 032027 12 Q. Let me -- let me rephrase it. 032020 13 A. No. I--I-- the -- 032030 14 Q._ I -- I withdraw the question. 03:20:20 15 A. Yeah. o3s2036 16 Q. We only have about ten minutes here. There 032023 17 are a couple of things that I -- 032038 18 A. Sure. Absolutely. 03:20:41 19 QQ. -- wanted to get before we -- we will come 032041 20 back to these when we resume. We have a lot more 032043 24 questions. 032048 22 A. Great. I look forward to it. 032046 23 MR. SIMPSON: I'm going to ask the reporter o3x2048 24 to mark as Exhibit -- what are we up to -- 6, ox20ss 25 Exhibit 6, a document bearing Bates stamp numbers ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 309 esa 1 BE-510 through -514. o32101 2 (Cassell's 1.D. Exhibit No. 6 - series of 21:01 3 e-mails, Bates numbered BE-510 - -514 was marked for 32118 4 identification.) a32113 5 BY MR. SIMPSON: o2zite 6 Q. I will give that to the witness. And to o3x2130 7 identify the document further, it's a series of e-mails, 032136 8 the most -- the latest one in date being at the top, 03210 9 which appears to be an e-mail from Paul Cassell to osaiaa 10 Jacqueline S. Jesko on Sunday, January 4th, 2015 at 3240 14 9=12:48 p.m. 03:21:51 12 A. Right. oars: 13 Q. My first question is whether you, in fact, 032187 14 sent this e-mail that -- that this -- had this exchange 032202 15 of e-mails with Miss Jesco? ox2z04 16 A. Yes. 032204 17 Q. And Miss Jesko -- who is Miss Jesko? 032208 18 A. She works for -- which -- which -- oh, 032213 19 Nightline. She works for Nightline, yes. os221s 20 Q. So she’s with ABC News? 32217 21 A. I believe that's right, yes. oszt9 22 Q. And -- 032219 23 A. Imean,I--I can't remember. The network 032222 24 wasn't significant to me, but she’s with the Nightline o3222 25 program. I knew that was a major program. I don't ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 10/20/2015 01:08:15 PM 03:22:27 03:22:28 03:22:35 03:22:35 03:22:39 03:22:42 03:22:45 03:22:48 03:22:51 03:22:59 03:22:58 03:22:59 03:22:59 03:23:00 03:23:00 0423.04 03:23:05 03:23:06 03:23:06 03:23:10 03:23:15 03:23:18 03:23:22 03:23:25 03:23:25 03:23:28 03:23:33 02:23:37 03:23:39 03:23:42 03:23:42 03:23:44 03:23:45 03:23:49 03:23:53 03:23:55 03:24:00 03:24:04 03:24:03 03:26:14 03:26:14 03:24:14 03:24:15 03:24:15 03:24:16 03:24:18 03:24:20 03:24:23 03:24:26 03:24:27 on OO bh &@ NH = 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 On Oa kh OD = @ 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 308 to 311 of 335 310 know -- I can't recall sitting here today whether Nightline, is that an ABC program or NBC or -- or some other network. Q. If you look at the exhibit, the e-mail in the second -- the bottom half of the first page, it has her e-mail address. Does that -- @abc.com? A. Yeah, yeah, yeah. That's good. Thank you. Q. So ABC. So in this e-mail on January 4th of 2015, you told Miss Jesko of CBS News [sic] that -- MS. McCAWLEY: ABC. I'm sorry. You said CBS. MR. SIMPSON: I'm sorry. THE WITNESS: There you go. MS. McCAWLEY: Now, we are really confused. MR. SIMPSON: I'm sorry. Let me start again, and thank you. MS. McCAWLEY: Sure. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q.Inthis e-mail on January 4th, 2015, you told Miss Jesko of ABC News, quote: I represent, along with Brad Edwards in Florida, the young woman who was sexually abused by Prince Andrew and Alan Dershowitz, period, close quote. Have I quoted that correctly? A. You have. Q. So is it fair to say that in this e-mail, you ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 311 have told ABC News that Mr. -- Professor Dershowitz, in fact, had abused Virginia Roberts? A. No. I think it says that I'm the lawyer who is representing someone who has -- has made those allegations. Q. That's how you read this e-mail? A. Yes. Q. In the e-mail you identified Miss Roberts as: “The young woman who was sexually abused by Prince Andrew and Alan Dershowitz." That doesn’t read to you as a statement that she was abused? A. Incontext, I think it was understood that I was the attorney representing her with that claim. MR. DERSHOWITZ: Move on. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. Who -- JHE WITNESS: I'm sorry. What was that? Who -- who was that? MR. SIMPSON: Who is speaking? THE WITNESS: I heard somebody say "move on" or something. Could somebody identify themselves, please? Did I -- MR. SIMPSON: In any event, I -- I will move on. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 40 of 46 sheets HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010880

03:24:27 03:24:30 03:24:32 03:24:34 03:24:36 03:24:37 03:24:40 ON Oo RR & h -~- 03:24:42 @ 03:24:44 03:24:45 10 032446 11 03:24:46 12 032447 13 03:24:48 14 032450 15 032452 16 03:24:58 17 03:25:01 18 os2s04 19 032807 20 oa2s10 21 032512 22 032512 23 032517 24 032537 25 03:25:17 03:25:17 03:25:17 03:25:20 03:25:24 03:25:27 03:25:29 On oa bk woh = 03:25:32 @ 03:25:34 03.2537 10 ox2sa7 11 032539 12 oszsat 13 os264s 14 osasas 15 03:25:47 16 032548 17 o32ss1 18 03:25:51 19 03:25:56 20 o3zss6 21 o3x2sss 22 o32sse 23 032656 24 03:26:02 25 41 of 46 sheets 312 THE WITNESS: Well -- well, who -- I'm sorry. Who was that? The speaker? I want to know who is on the line here. Could somebody identify themselves, please? If somebody is eavesdropping in my deposition, I would like to know who it is. MR. SIMPSON: No one has the call-in number other than counsel and parties. THE WITNESS: So -- MR. SIMPSON: To my knowledge. MR. SCAROLA: Yeah, but that -- THE WITNESS: But who is that person? MR. SCAROLA: -- that doesn't preclude someone from sharing that call-in number. And it is appropriate that anybody on the line identify themselves. And if the people on the line refuse to identify themselves, then it's our intention to cut off the line, and the people who are authorized to be on the line can call back in. MR. SCOTT: I agree with that. MR. SIMPSON: Could -- could the people on the line identify themselves? MR. SCAROLA: Okay -- MR, DERSHOWITZ: Alan Dershowitz. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 MR. SCAROLA: --~ cut it off. MS. McCAWLEY: He just -- he just -- THE WITNESS: So he -- MR. SIMPSON: Alan Dershowitz. Anyone else? MR. SCAROLA: So the only person on the line is Alan Dershowitz, and it was Mr. Dershowitz who made the comment "move on"; is that correct? MR. SIMPSON: Well, he's the only one on the line. I know -- I've only got three minutes left here. MR. SCAROLA: Well, I'l give you three more minutes. I want to know: Was it Mr. Dershowitz who made that comment "move on" because if it wasn't, there's somebody else on the fine -- MR. WEINBERG: I --I-- MR. SCAROLA: -- that refuses to identify themselves. MR, WEINBERG: Marty Weinberg for Epstein. I've been on the line on occasion. I have a mute button and have said nothing and just kept on going with no statements on my end. MR. DERSHOWITZ: It was me who said it. I-- I -- I thought my mute button was on. THE COURT REPORTER: I can't hear. I can’t hear. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 Page 312 to 315 of 335 03:26:02 03:26:02 03:26:02 03:26:03 03:26:03 03:26:05 03:26:06 ON Oa BR & wR = 03:26:08 ox2e0e 9 0326.06 10 0326068 11 os2600 12 0326.09 13 03:26:12 14 032612 15 os2614 16 032614 17 o32614 18 032618 19 03.2625 20 032628 21 03:26:32 22 os263s 23 032634 24 032634 25 03:26:36 03:26:45 03:26:51 03:26:53 03:26:55 03:26:58 03:27:02 ON Oak WH = 03:27:06 ce] 03:27:07 oa2709 10 o3s27is 11 032717 12 032717 13 osa721 14 oserea 15 o32r26 16 03.2729 17 032732 18 03:27:36 19 03.2738 20 osara1 21 03:27:44 22 032749 23 032750 24 o32rss 25 314 MR. SIMPSON: Okay. I -- THE COURT REPORTER: I can't hear. MR. SIMPSON: I heard it and Ill -- T'll repeat it. MR. SCAROLA: "It was me who said it." MR. SIMPSON: "And I thought my mute button” -- MR. SCAROLA: “I thought my” -- MR. SIMPSON: -- "was on.” MR. SCAROLA: -- "mute button was on.” And that was Mr. Dershowitz making that comment? MR. SIMPSON: Yes, it was. MR, SCAROLA: Okay. Thank you. MR. DERSHOWITZ: +I was trying to instruct my attorney. MR. SCAROLA: Then we are ready to move on. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. Have you told any -- all right. Putting aside counsel who are working with you, and putting aside those who you identified as being within the common-interest privilege -- A. Right. Q. -- so not those people -- A. Right. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 315 Q. -- have you told anyone that Professor Dershowitz abused Virginia Roberts or any other minor? A. No. I've -- what I have tried to say is that I'm representing a young woman who has made those allegations. As an attorney, I'm proud to represent her, proud to present her case in court, proud to present arguments to whoever will listen that she's been sexually abused by various people. Q. Okay. And you have spoken with representatives of the News Media on the record and off the record about this case; isn't that -- is that not correct? A. Well, on the record, yes; with regard to off the record, there have been some communications that I think now have been turned over to the -- to the defense. So I don't -- I'm not sure if there still remain any off the record -- I suppose probably there are a few, but I would -- I think most of the -- what were originally off-the-record communications have now been provided to -- to the defense time. Q. Mr. Cassell, is it not true -- true, that you have spoken with reporters on what you referred to as quote, background, close quote? A. Yeah. I mean that's different than -- your ‘earlier question was off the record and on the record. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 10/20/2015 01:08:15 PM HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010881

03:27:57 03:27:58 03:28:04 03:26:04 03:28:08 03:28:10 03:28:13 ON OA ah WN = 03:28:16 03:28:17 9 03:28:19 1 0 03:28:21 1 1 03:28:23 1 2 03:28:25 1 3 03:28:28 14 03:28:31 1 5 o32e34 16 os2eae 17 03:28:40 1 8 03:28:42 1 9 03:28:45 20 03:28:49 21 03:28:53 22 03:28:54 23 03:28:56 24 03:29:00 25 03:29:04 03:29:08 03:29:14 03:29:14 03:29:18 03:29:20 03:29:24 ON nah DDN - 03:29:26 ie} 03:29:30 03:29:33 10 032035 11 o3ze40 12 032044 13 oxze46 14 o32040 15 032051 16 032055 17 03:29:58 18 os2059 19 03:30:00 20 033001 21 03:30:06 22 033010 20 oxa013 24 o33015 25 10/20/2015 01:08:15 PM 316 There is an intermediate category of background information as well, and I have spoken to some reporters in that capacity, yes. Q. And -- and -- and background means that it's not for attribution, correct? A. Right. The background means the reporter can use the information, but shouldn't attribute it to a particular person. Q. And, in fact, you have -- A. Or let me -- let me just clarify. Some time -- well, background, I think, you know, we are now talking about sort of -- when I use the term "background," it would generally mean that this is something maybe that you want to investigate and see if you can confirm in other ways, but it shouldn't be sourced to ~- that I shouldn't be quoted directly because they are going to have to find other -~ other sources that confirm that same information. Q. Okay. And so my question is that it is true that you have spoken with a number of reporters on background about Virginia Roberts's allegations in this case, correct? A. Well, a number -- a few, I would say, is probably a more accurate characterization. Q. Andin any of those background conversations, ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 317 did you ever identify Miss Roberts as someone who had been sexually abused by Mr. -- Professor Dershowitz? A. I tried to identify myself as the attorney representing someone who said that she had been sexually abused by Dershowitz. I think you've received -- you know, we can go through -- you know, we have produced, I think, 2,500 pages of discovery. Many of those pages are media communications. And, you know, we can go through, and I think you know that there are a number of examples, many examples, where I have said, I represent a woman who has alleged that... Some verbal formulation along those lines. I mean, attorneys represent victims all the time and -- and I don't think people generally understand when an attorney makes a statement, that the attorney is adopting and vouching for that statement. They are -- they are serving in a representative capacity. Q. Have you finished your answer? A. TI have. Q. Okay. Do you -- are you a party to any fee agreement of any kind that would relate to a possible recavery from Les Wexner? MS. McCAWLEY: Objection to the extent that it reveals any confidential communications with ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 03:30:47 03:30:22 03:30:24 03:30:27 03:30:28 03:20:46 03:30:52 On Aah @ D 03:30:56 io} 03:30:57 o33101 10 03:31:03 11 o3sit0 12 03:31:11 13 oxan14 14 o33114 15 o3a11s 16 ossite 17 03:31:20 18 osar22 19 03:31:23 20 03:31:23 21 03:31:24 22 03:34:28 23 03:31:20 24 033120 29 03:34:30 03:34:33 03:34:38 03:31:39 03:34:41 03:31:44 03:31:44 On A aA kh WN 03:34:45 @ 03:31:46 03:31:46 10 03:31:50 411 03:34:51 12 03:32:00 13 ossz0s 14 oasz08 15 o33211 16 ossa2 17 oxs214 18 osazie 19 03:3222 20 33226 21 033229 22 03:32:32 23 03:32:36 24 033238 25 Page 316 to 319 of 335 318 your client, my client, or any joint defense communications. You can't reveal that. THE WITNESS: Allright. So I'm going to follow that instruction and not answer. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. With respect to the -- what's now still Exhibit 2, the motion for limited intervention -- MR. SCAROLA: Let me just observe for the record that it's 12:02. I don't think we used the three minutes that I said I was going to give you, but we will go to 12:03 anyway. MR. SIMPSON: This line of questioning will take a little -~ a little time, so -- MR. SCAROLA: Well, what's a "little"? Oh, sO you -- MR. SIMPSON: MR. SCAROLA: MR, SIMPSON: few questions here. THE WITNESS: BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. I'm going to keep going. On the -- this is Five minutes. So you prefer to wait then? Let me ask -- I can ask you a Sure. your brief actually -- A. Which -- Q. ~~ Exhibit 1. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 319 A. Which -- let me just make sure which one is it. I have Exhibit 2, but I don't think I have Exhibit 1. Q. Oh, I probably have Exhibit 1. Let me give you Exhibit 1, I will give you 2 back so we don't lose it -- A. Okay. QQ. -- or keep it in front of you with the others. A. Okay. So, now, let's see. Okay. Yeah. I have it. Q. In preparing this brief, did you personally review the citations to the record that were given to support the factual assertions? A. As opposed to somebody else on the legal team? Q. Yes. I'm trying to ascertain whether you, yourself, reviewed citations -- I'm going to be asking you about a deposition transcript -- citations to the record evidence that are cited as representing to the court as supporting the factual assertions? A. Imean, I reviewed some, and others. You know, maybe I need to -- this is starting to get into work product. If you're asking, you know, what did Brad do, what did you do, what did the paralegals do -- ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 42 of 46 sheets HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010882

03:32:42 03:32:43 03:32:43 03:32:43 03:32:46 03:32:50 03:32:54 On O OM hb O&O ND «a 03:32:58 osazss | 9 03:33:00 10 03:33:02 11 033306 12 03:33:05 13 033307 14 oss 15 oaa312 16 o3331s 17 oaasia 18 033321 19 03:33:24 20 03:33:28 21 03:33:28 22 03:33:32 23 033334 24 o3xaa% 25 03:33:37 03:33:40 03:33:41 03:33:42 03:33:42 03:33:50 03:33:53 03:33:56 OoOoOnN Oak WH 03:33:59 03:34:01 1 0 03:34:03 1 1 03:34:08 1 2 03:34:42 1 3 03:34:12 1 4 03:34:13 1 5 03:34:45 1 6 03:34:17 1 7 03:34:18 1 8 93:34:20 1 9 03:34:22 20 03:34:22 21 03:34:34 22 03:34:39 23 03:34:44 24 03:34:51 25 43 of 46 sheets 320 Q. Let -- let me ask you a different question then. A. Okay. Q. By -- by submitting this brief with your name signing it, you were representing that the factual allegations, factual assertions, were support -- are supported by the record citations that are given for those, correct? A. Yeah. I mean, obviously, when you write a brief, you're -- you're -- you know, you're trying to represent that this is the best product I can come up with. Now, you know, in a 40-page brief did -- did -- is there some, you know, error in citation or something like that? I have to -- I'm not perfect. I'm sure that's a possibility, but, you know, I worked hard to try to put together the best product that I could on behalf of Virginia Roberts when I filed this brief. Q. And -- and in general, when a lawyer signs a brief, it's a representation to the court that the citations to the record support the factual -- A. Yeah, to the -- Q. _-- propositions given to the court? A. Yeah, that's right. To the best of, you know, your ability, sure. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 321 Q. Take a look if you would at page 29 -- A. Okay. Q. -- the top of the page -- A. Okay. Q. -- the statement: "Jane Doe number 3 came to the house when Dershowitz was there." And then it's "Id." which is a citation to the Alessi deposition, page 73, line 18 to 20. Do you see that? A. Ido. Q. So that sentence if I -- do you agree with me that sentence is representing to the court that Virginia Roberts came to the Palm Beach house when Professor Dershowitz was there? A. Yes. Q. I'm going to read you what's cited for that proposition. I can show it to you if you like. A. I would like to see it because, you know, it's possible I'm off. Q. Let me read it for the record. A. Sure. Q. And I will read what is cited. It's page 73, lines 22 to 25. Actually -- I'm -- yeah, I'm sorry. 73, 18 to 20. Line 18: "Not sure. When Mr. -- Mr. Dershowitz was ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 03:34:54 03:34:55 03:34:56 03:34:59 03:35:02 03:35:06 03:35:09 oN OM hk @ NM = 03:35:09 03:35:10 9 03:35:12 1 0 03:35:15 1 1 03:35:15 1 2 03:35:16 1 3 03:35:16 1 4 03:35:16 1 5 03:35:20 1 6 03:35:22 1 7 03:35:24 1 8 03:35:26 1 9 03:35:27 20 03:35:30 21 03:35:32 22 03:35:35 23 03:35:36 24 03:35:40 25 03:35:43 03:35:44 03:35:46 03:35:49 03:35:50 03:35:53 03:35:54 On Oa a WD 03:35:55 03:35:58 9 03:36:00 1 0 03:36:01 1 1 03:36:02 1 2 03,36:04 1 3 03:96:04 1 4 03:36:06 1 5 03:36:08 1 6 03:36:14 1 7 03:36:15 1 8 03:36:16 41 9 03:36:19 20 03:36:23 21 03:36:27 22 03:36:30 23 03:36:30 24 03:36:34 25 Page 320 to 323 of 335 visiting? "Uh-huh. Answer. "Question: How often did he come? "Answer: He came pretty -- pretty often. I would says as least four or five times a year.” And that's what is cited as the support for the proposition -- A, I'd -- I would like to look at the document. Q. I'm going to give you the document before I ask you to comment on it. A. Sure. Q. I will -- I will go beyond what was cited to the court -- A. Okay. Q. -- to put it in context. A. But I mean, there's -- this is a large -- well, that's what I'm saying. I would like -- my recollection is that there are number of parties to the Alessi depo -- Q. No. My -- my only question is in this brief, the lawyers signing it represented to the court that this citation supported that factual assertion. A. But that's true, yes. Q. Okay. I will read it. "Do you have any recollection of V.R., ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 323 Virginia Roberts, coming to the house when Prince Andrew was there? Question. "Answer: It could have been, but I'm not sure. "Not sure. When Mr. Dershowitz was visiting? "Uh-huh. "How often did he come? "He came pretty -- he pretty often. I would says at least four or five times a year." A. Okay. Q. Do you want to take a look at that? A. Yeah. MS. RICHARDSON: Page 73. BY MR, SIMPSON: Q. Page 73, line -- it's right here (indicating) if it helps you find it. A. Yeah. Okay. All right. That's what those lines say, yes. Q. Okay. So my -- my question is: In your view, as an attorney, does that quotation -- does that testimony support the assertion that Professor Dershowitz and Virginia Roberts were in the house at the same time? A. Those -- those lines 18 to -- Q. And if you want to put it in the context of a ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 10/20/2015 01:08:15 PM HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010883

326 033638 1 couple of lines above it that do refer to Virginia 0338027 1 A. The lawyer -- look, this is not the first 033633 2 Roberts, put it in the context. 033827 2 time -- 033641 3 My question is: Does that, fairly read, 033827 3 Q. I'm not asking the -- 33646 4 constitute testimony that Virginia Roberts and Professor oxaa20 4 A. -~a lawyer has cited the wrong line number ox3e4s § Dershowitz were in the house at the same time? 33331 5 ona transcript or something, and if you're suggesting o33681 6 A. Those three sentences, three fines. 033033 6 that -- you know, I will concede that I cited the wrong ossess | 7 Q. What -- yes, what the brief cites. o33a38 «7 line number for that particular assertion. o3sses7 8 A. Those -- those three lines: “Not sure. When os3aat 8 Q. And this is what I want to clarify: When you o370 9 Mr. Dershowitz was visiting. Uh-huh. How often did he | 03342 9 say the wrong line number, if you look at the quotation, 03346 10 there is, up above -- you cited 18 to 20 -- 22 to 25 -- o3e46 11 no, 18 to 20. I'msorry. You cited 18 to 20 which is 033706 10 come?" Those -- those three lines, I agree, that looks o3a7zio 11 ‘like a miscitation there. I agree with you on that. oss714 12 Q. And isn't it true that -- first of all, 033716 13 nothing else is cited in the brief or elsewhere to o33ass 12 -- do you see that? o33as7 13 A. Ido see 18 to 20, yes. oxsase 14 Q. And those lines don't refer to Virginia 03:37:22 14 support -- put -- put aside. 033901 15 Roberts coming to the house, correct? 03:39:02 16 A. Lines 18 to 20 do not refer to Virginia 033910 17 Roberts -- oh, no, wait a minute. Now, this is -- o3a723 15 Other than Virginia Roberts's own testimony, 03.3726 16 this is the only evidence that you cited to the court to 033730 17 support -- o3s7a1 18 A. No, no, no, no, no. That would require a oz312 18 because when I fook at it here, line 15: 033738 19 30-minute answer. o3aa17 19 "Do you have any recollection of V.R., 0330-20 20 Virginia Roberts, coming to the house when oxa7as 20 Q. Okay. I won't ask you a 30-minute answer -- 03:37:37 24 MR. SCAROLA: How about -- how about wrapping 033738 22 it up then because it's now 12:10. oar 23 MR. SIMPSON: I will wrap it up. I have one 033742 24 more -- one more question. 033743 25 THE WITNESS: Okay. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 033021 21 Prince Andrew was there?" 03:30:23 22 Answer: "It could have been. I'm not sure. 03:39:28 23 "Not sure. When Mr. Dershowitz was 0330-28 24 visiting?” 03:30:30 25 So now when I read it, actually, I'm now ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 325 327 033743. 1+ +=BY MR. SIMPSON: 03332 1 going to withdraw my earlier answer, I would -- because o33743 2 Q. And that is: I just want to confirm that you 033935 2 you know, it's getting late in the day. I'm getting a 033747 3 do agree with me that what was cited to the court for 033937 3 little fuzzy here. When Mr. Dershowitz was visiting, 033750 4 the proposition that they were together, in this 03340 4 uh-huh, could be an affirmative answer read in context o337s2 5 sentence, doesn't support that proposition? o33045 5 to saying, I don't recall about Prince Andrew, but I do os37s4 G A. I will agree with you that there appears to 033947 6 recall Virginia Roberts being there. And I think when 033756 7 bea miscitation of the line number -- of the lines 18 o33e49 % we unpack the entirety of the deposition, which we don't o33a01 8 through 20. o3a982 8 have time right now, that the context that I'm o33a02 9 Now, you're saying that there is not osaaxss 9 suggesting now would be accurate. So I am not prepared 033804 10 information outside of 8 -~ lines 18 through 20 to 033087 10 to say, as I sit here right now, that those were the 033303 11 support the allegation, and that's going to require a 032050 11. wrong line numbers. 033011 12 much longer answer. o34001 12 Perhaps those are the correct line numbers, os3a12 13 Q. I don't want a long answer, but I do want to 03-4003 13 but what I think I should have done was to cite oaza15 14 clarify. When you say “outside” -- oases 14 additional parts of the transcript that would have, in osaets 15 MR. SCAROLA: You also said one more o3ae15 16 question. os3eis 17 MR. SIMPSON: Well, I -- let me just finish oszate 18 this, so we are not going to have this hanging, osaato 15 context, made clear that the assertion was correct. oaaots 16 MR. SCAROLA: With that -- oxa0is 17 MR. SIMPSON: I -- I just need to finish this 034016 18 one or two questions, but this is the topic, so os4o18 19 fet me finish it. o34019 20 BY MR. SIMPSON: oxao19 21 Q. Did you ever watch the video -- cade 22 MR. SCAROLA: Running out of tape -- o3x4o19 23 BY MR. SIMPSON: 03:40:22 24 Q. _ -- of the transcript? 03.4022 25 MR. SCAROLA: We are also running out of tape ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 (954) 331-4400 10/20/2015 01:08:15 PM Page 324 to 327 of 335 44 of 46 sheets oxzaig 19 because I want to make sure we are communicating. 03:36:21 20 THE WITNESS: Okay. Sure. 03:33:21 21 BY MR. SIMPSON: 03:38:22 22 Q. I understand you're -- you're saying that 03:32 23 there -- there may be evidence -- 03:38:26 24 A. Yeah. o3:38.27 25 QQ. -- elsewhere? HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010884

03:40:25 03:40:26 03:40:26 03:40:28 03:40:28 03:40:28 03:40:29 03:40:31 03:40:33 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 oao2s 10 0340-37 14 034042 12 oxaoas 13 osaoar 14 os4os0 15 osaosa 16 03:40:56 17 oa4os0 18 03:41:00 19 oaa102 20 034103 21 os4t05 22 osat0s 23 03-4108 24 osaioe 25 03:44:10 03:41:13 03:44:14 03:41:17 03:41:18 03:41:20 03:41:21 03:41:22 03:41:23 On oOnAh WN = 9 o3ar.23 10 03:41:24 1 1 03:41:25 1 2 03:41:29 1 3 03:41:32 1 4 03:41:35 1 5 03:41:38 1 6 03:41:39 41 7 03:41:40 1 8 03:41:44 1 9 03:41:43 20 03:41:46 21 03:41:46 22 03:44:48 23 03:41:50 24 03:41:52 25 328 right now. MR. SIMPSON: I've got -- THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Two minutes. MR. SIMPSON: Two minutes. All right. That won't take -- BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. I want you to look at the video of that -- that testimony. Would you play it, please, for the witness? This is from the videotape of the deposition. THE WITNESS: I do not want to watch just -- I want to watch -- what -- what I'm seeing here as I dive into this, I would -- if you're going to ask me questions about what's in these particular lines, I want to see -- I want to go back. I want all of the -- the relevant parts of Virginia Roberts's testimony played. And I believe there are approximately four points in the transcript where she’s mentioned, so can we play all four of those? MR, SCAROLA: We are not going to do that. We have run out of time. Per agreement, this was supposed to stop at noon. MR. SIMPSON: Okay. MR. SCAROLA: It is now 12:12, so this deposition is ended. There were a lot of things ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 329 that I would have like to have finished with Professor Dershowitz and wasn't permitted to do that. So by agreement, this deposition is now over. MR, SIMPSON: It -- it's -- it's ending over my objection and the witness's -- MR. SCAROLA: I -- I understand that. MR, SIMPSON: -- the -- I'm going to make my record, MR. SCAROLA: Okay. MR. SIMPSON: -- the witness's refusal to look at the videotape of the portion of the deposition that he just characterized in his testimony as suggesting an affirmative answer to the question of whether Virginia Roberts and Professor Dershowitz were there at the same time, and I will represent -- MR. SCAROLA: That record is clear. MR. SIMPSON: -- and anyone looking at that videotape would know, to a moral certainty, that that was false. THE WITNESS: Okay. And I -- I want to make clear that I would be happy to look at everything. We will do that at another time perhaps. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 03:41:54 03:41:54 03:41:55 On aA kh w@ Ph = hm DH PD RD RD ee wk wk kkk ah ON | OM ON DP Oh WH 3 @ 0 ON OA hw bp «a CEE CREE CE Cn Cn NS te es At WOH 4H OW ON Oak wh 3 @ @ 330 MR. SCAROLA: Right. THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are going off the video record, 12:14 p.m. (Witness excused.) (Deposition was adjourned.) ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 331 DEPOSITION ERRATA SHEET Assignment no: 220190 BRADLEY J. EDWARDS and PAUL G. CASSELL vs. ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ DECLARATION UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY I declare under penalty of perjury that I have read the entire transcript of my deposition/examination under oath taken in the captioned matter or the same has been read to me, and the same is true and accurate, save and except for changes and/or corrections, if any, as indicated by me on the DEPOSITION ERRATA SHEET hereof, with the understanding that I offer these changes as if still under oath. day of ; Signed on the 2015. PAUL G. CASSELL ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 45 of 46 sheets Page 328 to 331 of 335 10/20/2015 01:08:15 PM HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010885

oOo eon Oo OF fF |W NH = NN NM NM NY A we wk kk a FW NA FCO WN DoH FF WN | @ oon oO om fF WN = NM NM DN DR we wh kkk a 2 WN 2 @ O ON OO fF WN #@A @ 10/20/2015 01:08:15 PM 332 DEPOSITION ERRATA SHEET Page No. Line No. Change to: Reason for change: Page No. Line No. Change to: Reason for change: Page No. Line No. Change to: Reason for change: Page No. Line No. Change to: Reason for change: Page No. Line No. Change to: Reason for change: Page No. Line No. Change to: Reason for change: Page No. Line No. Change to: Reason for change: SIGNATURE: DATE: , 2015 PAUL G. CASSELL ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 333 DEPOSITION ERRATA SHEET Page No. Line No, Change to: Reason for change: Page No. Line No, Change to: Reason for change: Page No. Line No, Change to: Reason for change: Page No. Line No. Change to: Reason for change: Page No. Line No. Change to: Reason for change: Page No, Line No. Change to: Reason for change: Page No. Line No. Change to: Reason for change: SIGNATURE: DATE: , 2015 PAUL G. CASSELL ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 on Oo &@ OW NH + 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 oan Oma h WN -2 CERTIFICATE OF OATH STATE OF FLORIDA =) COUNTY OF BROWARD) I, the undersigned authority and Notary Public certify that PAUL G. CASSELL personally appeared before me and was duly sworn on Saturday, the 17th day of October, 2015. Sworn to before me this 19th day of October, Theresa Tomaselli, RMR Notary Public - State of Florida My Commission No. FF 226528 My Commission Expires 8/27/2019 220190 ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 335 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE I, THERESA TOMASELLI, Registered Merit Reporter and Notary Public in and for the State of Florida at Large, do hereby certify that I was authorized to and did report said deposition in stenotype; and that the Forege ig pages are a true and correct transcription of my Shorthand notes of said deposition. I further certify that said deposition was taken at the time and place hereinabove set forth and that_the taking of said deposition was commenced and completed as hereinabove set out. I further certify that I am not an attorney or counsel of any of ‘the parties, nor_am I a relative or employee of any attorney or counsel of party connected with the action, nor am I financially interested in the action. . certification of this transcript does not apply to any reproduction of, the same by any means unless under the direct control and/or direction of the certifying reporter, DATED this 19th day of October, 2015. The foregoin THERESA 220190 (954) 331-4400 Page 332 to 335 of 335 46 of 46 sheets HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010886