Latest / The Vault: The Epstein Files / Mega Edition: Paul Cassell's Deposition In Cassell/Edwards V. Dershowitz (Part 4-6) (6/21/26)

Transcript

Mega Edition: Paul Cassell's Deposition In Cassell/Edwards V. Dershowitz (Part 4-6) (6/21/26) · The Vault: The Epstein Files

0:00
Speaker 1: What's up, everyone, and welcome to another episode of the
0:03
Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're going to pick up
0:06
where we left off with the Paul Cassell deposition in
0:10
the lawsuit against Alan Dershowitz. Question, mister Cassell, you came
0:17
here today looking for an opportunity to give that statement?
0:20
Did you not answer if it was relevant to an
0:23
answer I was giving? Yes question. The answer to my
0:27
question is yes, you came here today looking for a
0:31
question to which you could respond with that prepared statement
0:35
answer I was prepared to give. I anticipated that a
0:38
very good attorney for mister Dershowitz might ask a question
0:42
where that would be relevant, And if that question were
0:45
asked and I was given opportunity to make a statement,
0:48
I wanted to be prepared to give it the most
0:50
accurate way I could. Simpson, I would like the reporter
0:54
to mark as exhibit. Are we up to four? Exhibit
0:58
four the document that mister Cassell was referring to. I'll
1:01
let the reporter do that, mister Simpson. I just wanted
1:04
to make that part of the record. Simpson. Question, Before
1:07
Wednesday of this week, you had none of the information
1:11
that you just described about Professor Dershowitz's testimony. Correct answer.
1:15
Correct question. I'm trying to look at my notes here
1:19
of your long answer, but one thing you indicated was
1:23
the fact that Professor Dershowitz gave long answers. Is somehow
1:26
indicative the false answers or perjury? Is that? Right? SCROLLA.
1:32
That is an absolute mischaracterization of the statement that Professor
1:36
Cassel made. He did not refer to the length of
1:38
the answers, but rather their non responsiveness. Simpson, let me
1:43
ask a different question, go back to the flight logs themselves. Answer, okay, question.
1:49
My initial question that got us going down this line
1:51
was isn't it true that the flight logs themselves support
1:55
professor Dershowitz's testimony that he was never on a plane
1:58
with redacted. The face of the flight log support that proposition. Answer.
2:03
The face of the flight logs for the relevant period
2:06
of time we call it the hot period of time
2:08
or whatever you want, did not reveal the presence of
2:11
mister Dershowitz on those flights. Yes question. Okay, so during
2:15
the period, well, actually, there's no flight log that shows
2:18
redacted and professor Dershowitz on the same airplane. Correct answer.
2:23
That's my understanding, yes, question, and mister Scola by name McCauley,
2:29
she pipes in and did Scrolla talks over her though,
2:33
asking whether she was there identified by name, Simpson, to
2:37
your knowledge, isn't it correct that there is no flight
2:39
log that's been produced in this case by any party
2:43
that reflects Professor Dershowitz and redacted on the same plane
2:47
as you read the flight log? Scarrolla, I'm sorry, are
2:51
you asking whether those same names appear on the flight
2:53
log together? Simpson? My question, I think is perfectly clear.
2:59
Question question. My question, mister Kassel, is you reviewed the
3:04
flight logs? Correct answer? Correct question you reviewed them in
3:08
some detail? Correct answer? Correct question. Is there in any
3:13
entry on those flight lines or logs that you read
3:16
as putting professor Dershowitz and redacted on the same plane? Answer?
3:20
No question. So your testimony about questions about the completeness
3:25
and accuracy of those flight logs goes to whether the
3:28
logs are Let me rephrase that the answer that you
3:30
gave about your question, your views as to the completeness
3:34
of the flight logs and whether they may or may
3:37
not have changed in some ways, goes to whether those
3:40
logs are conclusive not whether they in fact support Professor
3:43
Dershowitz testimony that he was not on a plane with
3:46
redacted SCROLLA. I'm going to object to the form of
3:50
the question as vague and ambiguous. I don't understand it, Witness.
3:56
I won't give a long answer, but I think, as
3:58
previously indicated, you can't just look at the face of
4:01
these documents, you know, against the context of an international
4:06
sex trafficking ring that's trying to cover up what it's doing.
4:10
You can't just look at documents and assume that they
4:13
are one hundred percent accurate without having context in mind.
4:16
Simpson question, and so am I right that on the
4:19
face of the flight logs there's nothing showing redacted and
4:23
Professor Dershowitz on the same plane answer that is correct?
4:27
Question and go on and so do I understand correctly
4:31
that your position is that the flight logs you may
4:35
not complete or may have been changed, but you do
4:38
not dispute that on their face they support Professor Dershowitz testimony.
4:43
SCROLLA objection mcaulay objection SCROLLA compound the witness, could you
4:49
just aggregate that, mister Simpson question, you follow objections very well. Answer.
4:55
I was thinking of that as well. Question. Let me
4:59
just ask a different question. Answer, sure, thanks, question. You
5:03
testified that you at some length about why you questioned
5:06
the accuracy of the flight logs. Correct answer, correct question.
5:11
But I may be redundant, but you don't question. That's
5:15
what they show in their face, supports Professor Dershowitz testimony
5:19
McAuley objection mister Simpson that he was not on the
5:23
plane with redacted. Answer. You know the sex trafficking ring
5:27
run by Jeffrey Epstein has produced Epstein flight logs that
5:30
appear to show that Dershowitz and redacted are not on
5:34
the plane. So the answer to my question is yes,
5:39
scrolla I'm sorry the witness? Which question? Now? Simpson? The question?
5:44
Could you read back my question and my answer? Simpson?
5:47
Let me ask it again. Question what were you about
5:50
to say? Answer? I was about to say that the
5:53
records that they produced, I'm sorry gets cut off. The
5:56
records the records that were produced. Answer on their face,
6:01
I cannot give you a flight log that has redacted
6:03
and Alan Dershowitz sitting next to each other. Yes. Question,
6:07
And you also testified a moment ago that Professor Dershowitz
6:10
in his testimony in the last couple of days, had
6:14
testified that redacted had been arrested for stealing cash. Do
6:17
you refer do you recall that? Answer? I recall his
6:20
testimony to that effect. Yes. Question, and you testified that
6:24
no support for that had been produced in discovery? Is
6:28
that correct? Answer? That's my understanding. Yes. Question. Isn't it
6:33
true that mister Alessi deposition he described that under oath
6:36
and says that had happened. Answer. I don't have a
6:39
recollection of criminal charges having been discussed in the Alessie deposition. Question, Well,
6:45
let me just ask you, is it your testimony that
6:48
you understand that, in fact, you had been accused of
6:52
stealing money from her employers? McAuley, I'm going to object
6:56
to the extent it gets into any conversation that he
6:59
might have had with redacted on any issues the witness. Yeah,
7:03
I'm trying to If your question is about Alessi deposition,
7:06
I don't immediately recall them discussing discussing them. Simpson. Question,
7:11
If I represent to you that mister Alessi in his
7:14
deposition referred to a police report and an arrest of redacted,
7:18
do you have any reason to question that SCROLLA. Could
7:21
we pull out the deposition and if you have a
7:24
reference to that deposition, let's take a look, mister Simpson.
7:28
I'm just asking for his recollection right now. The document
7:31
will speak for itself. SCROLLA, Yes, it will. Simpson, he
7:35
made a very serious accusation. I would like to get
7:38
an answer to my question. Does he recall whether in
7:41
that deposition that all the parties in the case have
7:45
mister Alessi said under oath that she had been arrested
7:48
and charged with stealing from her employer, the witness. The
7:53
question built in a serious accusation. The statement I was
7:57
making is that we had propounded in interrogatory to mister
8:02
Dershwood saying what's the basis for your assertion that redacted
8:06
had a criminal record? And that answer didn't refer to
8:09
an Alessi deposition. This is one of the problems that
8:12
I'm having. You know, when you come into a deposition,
8:14
both sides are supposed to turn everything over, and then
8:18
if I get a question about well, what if you
8:20
know we're relying on this piece of the less depot
8:24
and it's not in the answers to the interrogatories, It's
8:27
hard for me to give an answer to that, and
8:30
so that's the concern that I have. Mister Simpson moved
8:33
to strike is non responsive question. My question went to weather.
8:37
Let me back up if unless I'm misunderstanding you, SCROLLA.
8:41
The question was did he recall the contents? Simpson, I'm
8:45
asking the question SCROLLA of the less deposition, Simpson, I'm
8:50
withdrawing it. I will ask a new question. SCROLLA. Okay,
8:53
thank you, Simpson. I understood you in the long answer
8:57
that you gave a while ago to suggest that Professor
9:00
her Dershowitz had either testified falsely or failed to provide
9:03
relevant information on which he was basing his testimony about
9:07
redacted's arrest. Is that right answer? Yes, question, and that
9:11
assertion would be incorrect if there's a deposition in the
9:14
case that all the parties have that include that information. SCROLLA.
9:20
Mister Simpson, there was an express reference to an answer
9:23
to an interrogatory and the absence of any reference to
9:26
an arrest for theft and your client's sworn answer to
9:30
the interrogatory. That's exactly what the testimony was, Simpson. If
9:35
you object to the form, please just object to the form.
9:38
I think it's a proper question in our discovery response Scrolla,
9:43
I object to your misrepresentation of the earlier testimony. I'm
9:48
sure it was not intentional, and that's why I'm calling
9:50
it to your attention, so that we don't go down
9:53
a rabbit trail. Simpson. I'm not going down any rabbit trail.
9:57
Objection to the form will preserve it. Simpson. My question
10:02
is whether you were aware at the time that Professor
10:04
Dershowitz testified that, in fact, mister Alessi had also testified
10:09
previously about the arrest of redacted for stealing from her employer. Answer.
10:14
I didn't recall that. If that's in there, you're making
10:17
a representation, and I know you're a fine lawyer, so
10:20
I'll accept your representation. I didn't recall that when he
10:24
was testifying a day or two ago on that subject.
10:28
Mister Scrolla, we've been going for about an hour. Is
10:31
it time to take a break. Is that convenient for you,
10:34
mister Simpson. We can take a break now, all right.
10:36
We're going to wrap up right here as well, and
10:38
in the next episode we're going to pick up where
10:40
we left off. All of the information that goes with
10:44
this episode can be found in the description box. What's up, everyone,
10:48
and welcome to another episode of the Epstein Chronicles. In
10:52
this episode, we're going to pick up where we left
10:54
off with the Paul Cassel deposition in the lawsuit against
10:59
Alan Dershowitz. The witness. I need to take two minutes,
11:03
if I may, and just supplement the long answer that
11:06
I gave about the series of things. By looking over
11:09
my checklist, I noticed that item five of the twelve
11:12
items was not given during my testimony. He gets cut
11:16
off by Simpson. I'm not going to ask about item five.
11:20
It's in the record as part of your He gets
11:22
cut off now by mister Kassel. Answer. I would like
11:27
to just supplement SCROLLA pops in. That's fine, that's fine.
11:30
If you don't want to hear it, that's okay, just
11:33
as long as it's noted that there was an inadvert
11:37
no mission the witness. Yeah, Simpson, I'm going to go
11:40
back actually to the question. I was asking one question
11:44
about the flight logs again, answer, okay, question it's true.
11:49
Is it not that you have no personal knowledge as
11:52
to whether Professor Dershowitz or some other member of Jeffrey
11:55
Epstein's defense team prepared those logs for production to the government. Answer.
12:01
I don't have any personal knowledge of that. That's right question.
12:05
And you would agree, would you not? That it's the
12:08
duty of the defense council to represent a client zealously
12:11
within the bounds of the law. Correct answer, correct question.
12:16
In fact, I think you testified yesterday about your duty
12:19
with respect or adacted along those lines. Correct answer. That's
12:23
right question. And so with respect to Professor dershowitz representation
12:27
of Jeffrey Epstein, he would have been acting on ethically
12:31
if he didn't attempt to negotiate the best resolution for
12:34
his client that he could, consistent with the law. Is
12:37
that correct answer? Right? Consistent with the law? Yes question,
12:42
and so you wouldn't he gets cut off now by Kassel.
12:45
Let me just consistent with the law and with ethical
12:48
obligations of attorneys. Attorneys cannot make, for example, false representations
12:54
when they're negotiating those kinds of things. Question right, the
12:57
duty of a defense council Professor dershowitz duty was to
13:00
attend to obtain the best resolution that he could for
13:04
Jeffrey Epstein, consistent with the law and legal ethics. Correct answer,
13:08
that's correct question. And in fact, if he had not
13:12
done that he would have not been acting ethically correct
13:15
Answer correct, question, and you would agree it would be inappropriate,
13:20
totally inappropriate to infer anything negative about an attorney because
13:24
the attorney represented someone accused of Hainu's crimes. Answer just
13:29
the fact of representation alone. Question Yeah, answer, Yeah, that's right. Sure,
13:35
of course, everyone's entitled to a defense. Question before December
13:40
thirtieth of twenty fourteen, had you reviewed in the Palm
13:43
Beach police report? Answer portions of it? Yes, question had
13:48
you reviewed the entire report? Answer? I think I reviewed
13:51
most of it, but I think I've gone through it
13:53
page by page. Question when did you do that? Answer? Well,
13:58
let's see before December thirtieth, twenty fourteen, Brad, and I
14:03
filed the case in about July of two thousand and eight,
14:06
so it was about a six year period of time.
14:09
But I remember I had been to Florida a couple
14:11
of times on this case, once in twenty ten, and
14:14
I think another year or two later, and I remember
14:18
at least one of those times reviewing the report here.
14:21
I don't know if I can McCauley, Yeah, I wouldn't
14:24
go into anything, Cassell, So we just we just want
14:29
to know McCauley. The location's fine. The location once personally,
14:34
once here in Florida and then in my office while
14:37
in Salt Lake City. Mister Simpson, question, and you're able
14:41
to place in time when you reviewed these portions of
14:44
the police report other than before December thirtieth of twenty fourteen.
14:49
Answer not precisely, no question. And do you understand correctly
14:53
from your testimony yesterday that the police report is one
14:57
of the things you relied on to support making the
14:59
alleytions against Professor Dershowitz that are included in the joint
15:04
your emotion. Answer, that's right. Question. It's also true, is
15:09
it not that the police report includes an interview with
15:12
an adult woman who was retained to provide massages at
15:16
Jeffrey Epstein's residence for guests, among others. Isn't that correct? Answer?
15:21
I believe that's correct. Question. And based on that, is
15:24
it your testimony that it's fair to presume that a
15:27
reference that a guest god a massage is a code
15:30
word for abusing a minor sexually. Mister Scrolla, I'm sorry,
15:34
are you isolating? Simpson cuts them off. I don't want
15:38
to speech, mister Scrolla. If you object to the form,
15:41
object to the form, and I if it's not proper
15:44
objection Scrolla. I want clarification of the question. Please, are
15:47
you isolating Simpson? The question? Scarrolla cuts them off again
15:54
information Simpson cuts him off. I'm asking a question that's
15:59
perfectly clear. If you think it's objectionable, it'll stand, mister Scrola.
16:04
I'm going to object on the basis that it's vague
16:06
and ambiguous. Simpson, Please don't coach the witness Scrolla to
16:11
isolate his focus to that single piece of evidence. Simpson.
16:15
I object on the coaching of the witness. Simpson. My
16:19
question is is it reasonable considering that the police report
16:23
on its face shows evidence? Let me back this up
16:26
ask another question to you. Are you aware that the
16:29
police report reflects that a woman I refer to who
16:32
was hired to give massages told them that she never
16:35
touched anyone inappropriately. Answer? I think that there is information
16:40
along those lines in the police report. Yes. Question okay,
16:45
And so do you acknowledge that the police report on
16:47
its face reflects both reports of massages that involved improper
16:52
sexual contact contact and massages that were perfectly legitimate. Answer, yes,
16:58
but not in the same proportion question. My question, wasn't
17:02
a proportion the report, on its face, you understand, reflected
17:06
that there were massages given at mister Epstein's residence that
17:09
were perfectly legitimate. Answer some, It was basically a few
17:14
isolated examples from what I could see. Question, So you
17:18
would characterize that and what was said in the police
17:21
report as a few isolated examples? Answer? Well, given the
17:25
backdrop question No, my question it's a yes or no question.
17:30
Is that how you would characterize it? Scrolla excuse me,
17:34
the witness is not confirmed to answering yes or no.
17:36
If yes or no would be misleading Simpson, It's a
17:40
different position that was taken previously. But Cassell pipes in,
17:44
I mean, I was just going to give one sentence,
17:47
and the one sentence would be in the context of
17:49
this whole police report where they had twenty four approximately
17:53
minor girls who were being sexually abused. The references to
17:57
legitimate massages I would view as isolated. Question. So you're
18:03
coming to the conclusion looking at the police report that
18:05
they are isolated? Is that right? Answer? Yes? Question? And
18:10
do you think a fair minded reader of the police
18:12
report would reach that conclusion? Answer absolutely? Question And were
18:17
you aware that the police report, to give a bit
18:20
more detail, reflected that a woman who was described as
18:23
having tattoos was hired to give deep tissue Swedish massages.
18:27
Do you recall that being in the police report? Answer
18:31
something along those lines, yes. Question and she also the
18:35
woman also told the police that she was not Jeffrey
18:38
Epstein's type, that she wasn't thin, had tattoos, didn't fit
18:41
his type. Answer that sounds accurate with the information I have. Yes,
18:46
she doesn't sound like she would fit his type. Question
18:49
and so do you agree with me? He gets cut
18:52
off by cassel, And she's over the age of eighteen,
18:55
which is another reason why she wouldn't fit his type. Question,
18:59
But you acknowledge that this woman that the police report
19:02
reflects a woman over well over the age of eighteen
19:05
being hired to give perfectly legitimate massages. Correct answer, Yeah,
19:10
that was cover for the sex trafficking that was going on.
19:14
Question Okay, so now does the police report say it
19:17
was cover for the sex trafficking? Answer? That was my
19:21
conclusion when I reviewed the material. Question Okay, So your
19:25
inclusion is that a fair minded reader of the police
19:29
report would come to that conclusion. Answer December thirtieth of
19:32
twenty fourteen, knowing what we know now, Yes. Question do
19:38
you consider yourself a very suspicious person? Answer no. Question
19:43
do you consider yourself a conspiracy having a conspiratorial view?
19:49
Answer absolutely not. Question do you consider yourself a crusader?
19:53
Answer well, crusader for justice, I would say yes. Question,
19:58
let me put it this way. In your view, is
20:01
evidence that a person, any person, any guest at mister
20:04
Epstein's house had a massage, evidence that that person engaged
20:08
in criminal sexual conduct contact with minors because of the
20:12
fact of having a massage. Answer you'd have to look
20:16
at the context. Question on its own, Is it any evidence?
20:20
Doesn't it? Is it any evidence at all? In your view?
20:24
Answer it would be some evidence. Yes. Question withstanding that
20:28
the report on its face reflects both legitimate and illegitimate massages.
20:33
Answer The report on its face, let's be clear, reflects
20:37
a lot of illegitimate massages and sporadic or isolated, you know,
20:41
legitimate massages. So the fact that somebody gets a massage
20:45
in that context, I think it raises, you know, the
20:48
concerns we've been talking about. Question did you before December
20:53
thirtieth of twenty fourteen yourself personally review what I think
20:57
you referred to in your testimony yesterday as the Holy
21:01
grill an address book of mister Epstein. Answer pieces of it, Yes,
21:06
question did you review the entire document? Answer no. Question
21:10
Did I understand yesterday that you testified? Did I understand
21:14
correctly yesterday that you testified that the fact that the
21:17
names were circled indicated that those persons likely engaged in
21:21
a legal sexual contact with minors? Answer? My impression is
21:26
the names that were circled were circled by Alfredo Rodriguez
21:29
when he was busted by the FBI for involvement and
21:32
was asked to testify and identify those who would have
21:35
information about the sex trafficking organization. And based on all
21:40
the evidence I have, I believe the names that were
21:42
circled were the ones that kind of had that information. Question,
21:47
so it's your testimony that if the name is circled,
21:50
it indicates that they had information or that they are criminals.
21:53
Answer that they would have information about the sex trafficking
21:57
organization and that they would probably mean that they were
22:00
art of the organization. It may mean that there are
22:03
witnesses to what the organization was doing, but they would
22:06
have information that the FBI, among other law enforcement agencies,
22:10
should be following up on, and if they're trying to
22:12
piece together that the sex trafficking organization was doing. Question
22:18
would you agree that a fair minded person with that
22:20
background that you just described would not go to the
22:23
conclusion that the fact a name is circled indicates that
22:26
the person has engaged in criminal conduct. Answer? What it
22:32
would indicate is that they had information relevant to criminal activity.
22:36
Now would they, on the just the facts that a
22:39
name was circled standing alone, reach that conclusion. Well, that's
22:43
a hypothetical question because obviously in this case there's a
22:46
lot of other information. Question is it true is it
22:51
not that mister Rodriguez was trying to sell that book? Answer?
22:54
That's true. Question, And is it not also true that
22:57
the people who are circled are famous people? Answer? I'd
23:01
have to refresh my recollection as to exactly who was circled,
23:05
but I know some famous people were circled and some
23:08
famous people were not circled. Question would it be a
23:12
reasonable inference or a possible reasonable inference to draw that
23:16
mister Rodriguez was trying to highlight people who would be
23:18
of interest to the free press for purpose of selling
23:21
the book. Answer no, because he was talking. He was
23:24
not talking to the press. He was talking to an
23:26
FBI agent who had busted him for criminal activity, and
23:30
so I was assuming that he was trying to do
23:32
as so many criminals do when they're apprehended, was give
23:35
information to law enforcement agency that would be helpful so
23:39
that they can catch other big fishes is a phrase
23:41
that sometimes is used, so the little fish would would
23:44
get off or get cooperational deal from law enforcement agency.
23:50
Let's be clear, he was talking to somebody he understood
23:53
was an FBI agent at the time, and so it
23:56
was in the context of that conversation. Question do you
23:59
have any personal knowledge that it's in the context of
24:01
talking to the FBI that mister Rodriguez circled those names? Answer?
24:06
I've reviewed. I know I could refresh my recollection here,
24:09
but there's an FBI three oh two report of the
24:11
interview of the circumstances surrounding mister Rodriguez's arrest, and I
24:15
believe I reviewed that three oh two. Question do you
24:19
know whether the FBI at any point contacted Professor Dershowitz
24:22
to discuss any evidence he might have after his name
24:25
was circled on this document. Answer. I don't have any
24:29
personal knowledge of what the FBI did to follow up
24:32
after that. All right, folks, we're gonna wrap up right here,
24:35
and in the next episode dealing with the topic, we're
24:37
gonna pick up where we left off. All of the
24:40
information that goes with this episode can be found in
24:43
the description box. What's up, everyone, and welcome to another
24:47
episode of the Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're gonna
24:51
dive right back in to the Paul Cassel deposition in
24:54
the lawsuit against Alan Dershowitz. Question, Okay, one of the
25:01
names circled in the book is Courtney Love? Do you
25:04
know who she is? Answer? Not off the top of
25:06
my head. No question if I mentioned to you, or
25:10
if I represent that she's a famous actress, any reason
25:14
to question that? Answer? No. Question in your review? Was
25:18
Courtney Love involved in sex trafficking? Answer? I don't know.
25:22
Question in your view? Was Courtney Love a witness to
25:25
sex trafficking? Answer? Are you representing her name as circled? Question?
25:32
Her name is circled on the book In fact, we
25:34
can show it. Answer okay, yeah, question it circled on
25:38
the book answer, Okay, yeah, sure, I mean my understanding
25:42
would be that this is your I could ask a
25:45
question about the circling or your representation. Is the circling
25:49
the same type of circling that's done for mister Dershowitz,
25:52
for example, is it the same you know, handwriting, same ink,
25:56
same same appearance, you know, if it's consistent with the circle?
26:01
Are you representing it's consistent with the circling? Question? Mister Cassell,
26:06
we have a document produced in discovery that has various
26:09
names circled. Looking at that document, I don't see any
26:12
difference among the circles. Are you aware of any document
26:17
scrolla pipes in? Could we have a look? Could we
26:20
see the document? And then to do that they go
26:23
off the record for a moment and then they come
26:25
back on mister Simpson, Okay, back on the record. I'm
26:29
going to ask the reporter to mark as Cassel exhibit five,
26:34
a multi page document. It's a copy of the address
26:37
book that we've been speaking about, and ask mister Cassell
26:41
to take a look at this. And I'm going to
26:43
ask them about certain entries. Mister Simpson, and I will
26:47
note I put a few flags on here. The witness. Sure,
26:50
mister Simpson to direct your attention, which we can. I'll
26:54
note the pages for the record, just so we have
26:57
time or we have them thirty eight, seventy six and
27:01
eighty five Cassell, Okay, I just want to take two minutes.
27:07
He gets cut off by Simpson. Yeah, take a moment
27:10
to look at it. Casell Okay, I want to make
27:14
a few notes, if that's all right, just to get
27:17
them in. Question you're going to mark? Answer no, not
27:21
on the exhibit. I'm just going to make notes to
27:23
refresh my recollection so we don't have to take time.
27:27
I'm just making notes of the context here. This will
27:30
just take another minute, is all? Question? Take as long
27:34
as you want to to look at the document? Answer super,
27:37
thank you. Okay. Yeah, I think I'm oriented now, but
27:41
I haven't looked at the Love entry. Question. My first
27:47
question is is this a copy of the address book
27:50
that you referred to in your testimony? Answer? Yes, question okay.
27:55
And if you would take a look at I've marked
27:58
the entries for Courtney Love. Take a look at that one.
28:02
Answer all right, I see it. Question okay. And then
28:05
if you look at the last entry, there's an entry
28:08
for Professor Dershowitz. That's also circled. It should be on
28:11
the flag. It's two sided. Answer yeah. Question do you
28:15
see it? Answer? I see it? Question? And then also
28:20
the other one I marked is Donald Trump? Answer? Yes,
28:23
got it? I see those entries circled. Question? So am
28:27
I right? I'm right? Am I not that among others
28:31
circled our Courtney Love, Donald Trump, and Alan Dershowitz correct?
28:37
Answer correct, among many others. Yes. Question, and they're all
28:41
circled in the same way, are they not? Answer? Yeah,
28:44
It's kind of a box, is what I would say
28:47
some yes. Question, Is there anything on the face of
28:50
that document that leads you to conclude that the circling,
28:53
the significance of the circling, is any different for one
28:57
person than another. Answer? No. Question. So, based on the document,
29:03
do you infer that Courtney Love was involved in some
29:06
kind of sexual abuse of miners? Answer? I would infer
29:10
that if I were running a criminal investigation through the
29:13
FBI and I'm trying to find people who would have
29:16
relevant information, she would be one of the people that
29:19
I talked to. I mean, the names that are circled here.
29:22
Gleainne Maxwell, one of the identified traffickers. Epstein circled the pilot.
29:27
One of the pilots is circled. So it's these people
29:31
that all seem to be connected that are all being
29:34
marked here. And the number of people that are circled
29:37
is I would say, you know five to ten percent
29:40
of the names Ballparking in the dark. Question do you
29:44
know whether this address book was Jeffrey Epstein's address book
29:48
or Glene Maxwell's address book? Answer? I'm not certain exactly
29:52
whose book it is. I actually thought it was Alfredo
29:56
Rodriguez maintaining a copy of records in case he was
29:59
worth that Epstein might try to have him killed at
30:02
some point, and so this was his insurance policy. I
30:05
think he said against that happening. Mister Simpson, object to
30:10
the non responsive portion of the answer. Question is the
30:15
answer to my question, you don't know whether it was
30:17
Jeffrey Epstein or Glenn Maxwell's address book? Answer? I don't know.
30:22
And the reason I don't know is because actually I
30:25
believe it's neither of theirs, that it's one of the other. Actually,
30:30
I think it's a third possibility. I think that this
30:33
was Alfred or rodriguez insurance policy against getting knocked off
30:37
by Jeffrey Epstein. Question, So that's the view you have
30:42
of the significance of the document. Answer? Yeah, in part,
30:46
I mean there are other reasons it's significant, as we've
30:49
been talking about names or circle to appear to have
30:52
relevant information on Jeffrey Epstein's criminal activity. Question donald Trump
30:58
was a friend of Jeffrey Epstein? Is that not correct? Answer?
31:03
My understanding is yes, But I don't have a lot
31:05
of information about Trump. Question it's true. Also, is it
31:10
not that mister Trump was a frequent visitor to mister
31:13
Epstein's address? Answer? I know that he visited frequent. I
31:18
don't have a lot of information about Trump. Question and
31:21
his name is circled in the book, is it not? Answer?
31:25
I believe it is. Question based on him, assuming that
31:30
he's a frequent visitor to mister Epstein's home, and that
31:33
he's a friend of mister Epstein's, and that his name
31:36
is circled in this book, do you infer that he
31:39
was engaged in criminal sexual abuse of minors? McAuley, I'm
31:44
willing to object to the extent that your answer would
31:47
reveal anything that my client has told you. The witness No,
31:52
mister Simpson, question, but based on your testimony previously, you
31:56
would consider all of those facts to be evidence that
31:59
he may have been. Answer, there are you know, certainly
32:03
things that I would want to follow up on question
32:06
and answer if I were running we were in the context.
32:12
I take it of your question. You know, if somebody
32:14
is running an investigation into an organization, he gets cut off. Question,
32:20
did you, in the course of your representation of redacted
32:23
or any of the other Jane Doe clients you have
32:26
had who have had claims against mister Epstein, make any
32:29
effort to find out whether mister Trump had abused any
32:33
of them. Mister Edwards, I would just object to this
32:36
being work product privilege as it relates to the other
32:39
cases that I'm working on with Paul that Jack is
32:42
not involved in, mister Simpson, Okay, Edwards, with respect to
32:47
what we did during our investigation on behalf of other clients,
32:50
Simpson okay, McCauley right, And I object on that extent
32:55
and that it reveals anything you did on behalf of redacted.
32:59
Mister Edwards, I don't think that Jack would know to
33:02
object to this, but because I know of another case
33:05
that we work on that's protected by our work product
33:08
privilege who I talked to and who I did not
33:12
scrolla In that case, I instruct you not to answer.
33:16
Cassel all right, Simpson, all right, you're here, mister Edwards
33:20
as a client, not an attorney. Correct, mister Edwards. Yes,
33:24
that's my primary role in being here. But I'm going
33:27
to protect the privilege to the extent that it's not
33:30
being protected by others who don't recognize that the privilege
33:34
needs to be protected on other matters. Mister Simpson, Okay.
33:38
Question mister Cassel, as of December thirtieth, twenty fourteen, were
33:43
you aware that Professor Dershowitz had visited mister Epstein's home
33:48
and state as a guest for a week in the
33:50
company of his grandchildren, among other family members. Answer, I'm sorry,
33:56
which residents? Which Palm Beach residents? Question? Pombe answer can
34:02
your estate question? Yes? Well, let me rephrase it. I'll
34:07
be clear. Question were you aware as of December thirtieth,
34:11
twenty fourteen. Let me back up a moment. You indicated
34:16
yesterday that part of the basis for your conclusion that
34:19
this pleading it was appropriate to file this pleading accusing
34:23
Professor Dershowitz of misconduct was that he was a guest
34:27
at the pom Beach House. Correct answer, No, it was
34:31
more than that. He was a frequent guest, a frequent
34:34
overnight guest. Question My question is, as of December thirtieth,
34:39
twenty fourteen, were you aware that Professor Dershowitz had spent
34:44
a week at the pom Beach House with family members,
34:47
including his grandchildren. Answer no, question Okay. Do you think
34:51
it's reasonable? Would it be reasonable to believe that someone
34:55
who is committing criminal sexual abuse of minors at a
34:57
home wears such abuse as as you understand it is
35:01
a daily occurrence, would bring his grandchildren to stay for
35:04
a week. Answer, It would depend on the circumstances. I mean,
35:09
you know it would depend on circumstances. Scarrola. Are you
35:12
representing that Jeffrey Epstein was there at the time, mister Simpson,
35:16
I'm not answering questions, I'm asking questions. Scrolla. Oh okay,
35:22
mister Simpson, So in your view, let me rephrase that
35:26
you say it would depend on the circumstances. Answer sure, question,
35:31
that's your answer? Answer yes, question okay, So that you
35:36
don't find it odd that someone who knows that a
35:39
particular home is a scene of ongoing criminal abuse of minors?
35:43
And who himself has engaged in that criminal abuse would
35:46
bring his grandchildren to stay there for a week. Answer?
35:50
It would depend on the circumstances. Question And when you
35:53
say that Professor Dershowitz was a regular guest at the mansion,
35:57
at the Palm Beach House, it's correct? Is it not
36:00
that you're referring to a period after redacted had left
36:03
for Thailand? Answer no, question are you aware of any evidence?
36:10
Let me back that up during the period that redacted
36:13
contends she was sextually abused, which I understand to be
36:16
middle of nineteen ninety nine to middle of two thousand
36:20
and two. Is that consistent with your understanding? Answer approximately yes.
36:25
Question How many times did Professor Dershowitz visit the Palm
36:29
Beach mansion during that period? Answer? Am I understanding is
36:33
in the neighborhood? What was it three to five times
36:36
a year, staying two to three nights at a time.
36:40
Question and was that your understanding as of December thirtieth,
36:43
twenty fourteen. Answer yes. Question what was the basis for
36:49
your understanding? What pieces? What documents or testimony? Answer right?
36:54
The information you know? I gave a long presentation yesterday,
36:58
so that was my information question. I want to focus
37:01
now specifically. I'm not looking for a full answer on
37:05
your entire views of the case. I just want to
37:08
say you've testified that you understood as of December thirtieth,
37:12
twenty fourteen, that Professor Dershowitz was a visitor at the
37:16
Palm Beach mansion three to five times during this relevant
37:20
period of ninety nine to the middle of two thousand
37:23
and two. What was the basis on December thirtieth, twenty
37:27
fourteen for just that fact? Answer right. I'll take about
37:32
a minute here because there are a few things. He
37:35
gets cut off by Simpson, Okay, and I want to
37:38
make sure my question is clear. Answer. Sure question. I'm
37:42
not asking you about any of your inferences about anything else.
37:46
Just what's the basis for your belief that he visited
37:50
three to five times during that two year period? SCROLLA,
37:54
Could I ask for a clarification? Are you looking only
37:57
for direct evidence and you want to exclude the circle
38:00
substantial evidence? Is that the way you want to do this, Simpson?
38:04
I'm asking you can object to the form. Simpson. My
38:07
question is what was what were you? What did you
38:11
have in mind in supporting your conclusion or belief that
38:15
Professor Dershowitz visited three to five times during the relevant period. McCauley,
38:21
and I'm sorry, Can I just place an objection on
38:23
the record. I'm going to object to the extent that
38:27
you do not have to reveal attorney client privilege communication
38:31
unless it's something that's already public that she's revealed. Simpson. Okay, right,
38:37
so I'm not going to just exclude. I take it
38:40
your question isn't asking about communication question. My question is
38:45
asking about that. But I understand you're going to refuse
38:48
to provide it McCauley unless it's already public Cassell. Okay, So,
38:54
as of December thirtieth, I'm going to exclude any communications
38:58
from redacted from he gets cut off by SCROLLA, except
39:02
to the extent that they have already been made public.
39:05
That is, if she has given express permission to make disclosures.
39:09
These were not confidential communications, but communications intended to be
39:14
communicated to third parties, then you are permitted to include
39:18
information from redacted in your response to that extent, mister Simpson,
39:23
as of December thirtieth, twenty fourteen, any public statements by
39:27
her after December thirtieth, twenty fourteen would not be included
39:32
in the answer. Answer, okay McAuley, But let me be clear.
39:37
Let me be clear about my objection to the extent
39:40
that she revealed something to you in a non privileged context.
39:43
In other words, information that was going to be disclosed,
39:47
not for advice, but factual information that she intended to disclose.
39:52
That's not privileged. But if it's something that she communicated
39:55
to you in confidence with respect of getting legal advice,
39:59
then that would be privileged. The witness, right, Okay, So
40:02
wanna Lessi's deposition, Alfredo Rodriguez deposition, and then considerable circumstantial
40:08
evidence which we don't have to rehash involving the close
40:12
personal association between Epstein and Dershowitz. I mean again, we
40:17
can rehash all of that, but those are the kind
40:21
of the quick because I know you want to get
40:24
a lot of questions. That's the quick sort of highlight.
40:28
All right, folks, we're gonna wrap up right here, and
40:30
in the next episode we're gonna pick up where we
40:32
left off. All of the information that goes with this
40:35
episode can be found in the description box.