Latest / The Vault: The Epstein Files / Mega Edition: Paul Cassell's Deposition In Cassell/Edwards V. Dershowitz (Part 7-9) (6/21/26)

Transcript

Mega Edition: Paul Cassell's Deposition In Cassell/Edwards V. Dershowitz (Part 7-9) (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 Cassel deposition in
0:10
the lawsuit against Alan Dershowitz. Question, mister Kassel, isn't it
0:15
true that mister Rodriguez was not hired until several years
0:19
after the summer he gets cut off by Cassel two
0:23
thousand and four? Question? Let me ask it again until
0:27
well after two thousand and two. Answer? Yeah, about two
0:31
thousand and four. Question, And mister Rodriguez would have no
0:34
personal knowledge of how often Professor Dershowitz visited during a
0:38
period two years or three years before he was hired.
0:42
Isn't that true? Answer? So, look, this is why I
0:46
was trying to speed up the answer to the question.
0:49
We have a sex trafficking organization that is running a
0:52
common scheme and plan that is continuing on until it
0:56
was interrupted by law enforcement in about two thousand and
0:59
five and two thousand and six. So what the criminal
1:02
organization is doing in two thousand and four unless I
1:05
have some significant evidence that it's different than what was
1:08
going on in two thousand and two, two thousand and one,
1:10
two thousand nineteen ninety nine. I think it's reasonable to
1:14
conclude that some sort of criminal activity are going on later.
1:19
So if you want to get into the full scope
1:21
of the criminal organization, we can get into it. But
1:24
the fact that somebody in two thousand and four sees
1:27
this going on leads me to conclude that it's probably
1:30
the same thing going on in the absence of other
1:32
information in two thousand and one. Now think back to
1:37
what we just talked about with Donald Trump and the
1:40
new FBI report. Interesting, right again, they all knew question.
1:47
So from mister Rodriguez's testimony about what was going on,
1:50
so to speak, and my questions related what was going on?
1:54
The number of times that Professor Dershowitz visited that's the topic. Answer, right, question,
2:01
that's because he visited, according to mister Rodriguez several times
2:05
a year in two thousand and four, two thousand and five.
2:08
He must have visited several times a year in two thousand,
2:12
middle of ninety nine to the middle of two thousand
2:14
and two. Answer. I didn't say must have. I said,
2:18
that's going to be evidence of the common scheme and plan.
2:21
And then in the absence of you know, some falling
2:24
out between people or somebody becoming you know, more associated
2:29
or less associated with criminal organization. I mean, if you
2:32
want to get into the circumstantial evidence. In two thousand
2:35
and three, there's an article on which you know Dershowitz
2:38
identifies himself. He gets interrupted by Simpson. Let me interrupt you,
2:44
because I'm asking about My only question is evidence, not anything,
2:49
whether engaged in conduct or didn't engage in conduct. Just
2:52
how many times he came during this period? Answer right? Scrolla.
2:57
Excuse me, counsel. That's the reason why I asked you
3:00
to clarify whether you want to limit this to direct
3:03
evidence or whether you want all the evidence, including circumstantial evidence,
3:07
because as we both know, circumstantial evidence is good evidence.
3:12
A well connected chain of circumstances can be well connected,
3:17
and it may be as compelling proof as direct evidence
3:20
of a given fact. And that's the law. Mister Simpson, really, sir,
3:25
he cuts him off. Scrolla the circumstantial evidence. Simpson cuts
3:29
him off. Now, mister Scrolla, Scrolla tell us that Simpson,
3:34
please don't make speeches and please don't coach the witness.
3:39
Scrolla just tell us that I'm not coaching the witness.
3:42
You're asking ambiguous questions, Simpson, there is nothing ambiguous cut
3:47
off by SCROLLA. If you want only direct evidence, we
3:52
will give you only direct evidence. If you want a
3:54
full and complete answer, it's got to include circumstantial evidence.
3:58
So don't cut him off when trying to give you that. Simpson,
4:02
really objecting to the form of the question preserves all
4:06
of any problem there may be with the question. SCROLLA, No,
4:10
Sir Simpson, we don't need a speech SCROLLA. It doesn't.
4:15
It doesn't Simpson. Question, mister Gassell, is it your testimony
4:20
that from mister Rodriguez's testimony about how often he says
4:24
Professor Dershowitz visited in two thousand and four two thousand
4:27
and five timeframe, it's fair to draw an inference about
4:31
how often he visited in an earlier three year earlier timeframe. Answer,
4:37
in the circumstances of the case. Absolutely, question, And would
4:41
it be fair to infer from the number of times
4:44
that Donald Trump visited three years later how often he
4:48
visited at an earlier period. Answer? I did not investigate
4:52
the circumstances involving Trump. He wasn't somebody that was coming up.
4:57
Question were you aware on December thirtieth of twenty fourteen,
5:01
that Donald Trump was quoted in Vanity Fair as saying,
5:05
I've known Jeff referring to Jeffrey. Oh, I'm sorry. It
5:09
was New York Magazine, not Vanity Fair that he was
5:12
quoted as saying, I've known Jeff referring to Epstein for
5:15
fifteen years. Terrific guy, and he's a lot of fun
5:18
to be with. It even said that he likes beautiful
5:21
women as much as I do, and many of them
5:24
are on the younger side, No doubt about it. Jeffrey
5:27
enjoys the social social life. Were you aware of that
5:31
on December thirtieth, twenty fourteen. Answer? Possibly, I mean that
5:36
sounds vaguely familiar. Trump has not been somebody that that
5:40
I've paid much attention to in this case. Question, Based
5:45
on that statement and the facts we discussed earlier about
5:48
mister Trump visiting and being a friend and the other
5:51
circumstances we discussed, are you suspicious about whether he engaged
5:55
in sexual misconduct with minors? Ms McCauley, I'm going to
5:59
a to the extent that you can reveal anything that
6:03
my client has informed you of. The witness right if
6:07
we set aside that information I'm not suspicious. No, not
6:10
giving the information I have. Question. Okay, So, notwithstanding that
6:15
his name is circled in the address book, he was
6:17
a good friend, he visited it often, and he was
6:21
quoted as saying that Jeff was a terrific guy who
6:24
like young women almost as much as Trump did. You're
6:27
not even suspicious, answer. You know, let's break that down
6:31
in a couple of pieces. The fact that his name
6:34
is circled. If I were running an FBI investigation, I'd
6:37
go send somebody to see what he knew about it.
6:40
But no, it would take a lot more for me
6:43
to become suspicious that somebody is involved in sexual activity
6:46
like that question. Okay, so you would agree with me,
6:50
then that the fact that a person often visited the
6:53
mansion the person, the fact that a person was a
6:55
friend of mister Epstein for fifteen years, the fact that
6:58
the person had stated publicly that mister Epstein like young
7:02
women almost as much as I do myself, and the
7:05
fact that the name is circled in the address book
7:08
is not sufficient to raise a suspicion that that person
7:11
engaged in sexual misconduct. Question yes or no. It's a
7:16
yes or no question. Answer it requires. But mister Scrolla
7:20
jumps in, You're not required to answer yes or no.
7:23
If a yes or no response alone would be misleading, Cassell,
7:30
the problem is the word suspicion. I'm not particularly suspicious
7:36
on those facts, But you know, what do you mean
7:38
by suspicion? If I were running the FBI investigation and
7:42
somebody circled a name as saying, look, this fellow may
7:46
have some information, I'd go and follow up on that.
7:49
If you say that suspicion, then the answer would be yes.
7:53
But you know, based on that information alone, No, I
7:57
mean that wouldn't be enough for me to, you know,
7:59
invest time and energy into that particular possibility. Question. Okay,
8:05
So none of those facts are sufficient even to justify
8:08
spending time and energy. Correct answer. If I'm running this again,
8:13
what do you mean by suspicion, time and energy in
8:16
context of somebody who is running a pro bono case
8:19
with limited resource to try and figure out what the
8:21
sex trafficking ring is going to do. I'm not going
8:24
to chase after that rabbit. It seems far fetched. I'm
8:28
going to focus my efforts on the people who appear
8:30
to be more directly involved. Question. Okay, so, based on
8:34
the facts that I gave you a moment ago, you
8:37
think it's far fetched that Donald Trump was engaged in
8:40
abusing minors. Answer If that's all I had, I would
8:44
not invest time and energy in that right. Question. And
8:48
you refer to your pro bono case, what is your
8:50
best estimate of how much money you've made representing victims
8:54
of Jeffrey Epstein? Answer in which case were we talking about? Now?
9:00
In any case representing victims of Jeffrey Epstein? Answer, I
9:04
need to confer McAuley objection. Question, and that's a fact.
9:09
That's not a privileged question, that's a factual question. Answer factual, Well,
9:14
there are He gets cut off by Simpson. Just how
9:18
much money? You don't have to tell me who the
9:20
clients are, Just how much money? Answer I need to
9:24
cut off by Simpson. Once again, there's a question pending
9:28
I object to a break. There's no possible privilege Scrolla.
9:32
He has privilege, He has a privileged question. He wants
9:35
to consult with counsel Simpson. Well, really, my question is
9:39
how much money? And that's privileged Scrolla. It may be
9:42
I don't know. We need to talk the witness. That's
9:47
why I need to. He gets cut off by mister Scott.
9:50
There's no federal law or state law that supports that
9:53
financial information and fees is privileged. McCauley, We can argue
9:57
about that because that in my motion. So we can
10:01
argue about that. Simpson, Well we can. He gets cut
10:04
off by Scott. That one. I know all about Scrolla.
10:08
You're objecting to our taking a break, Simpson. I'm objecting
10:13
scrolla while the questions pending. Simpson, that's correct, Scrolla. It's
10:19
our position that the witness has a legal question about privilege.
10:22
We're going to take a break. We're going to talk
10:24
about it. It may turn out that it's not a
10:26
problem at all. I don't know. So they go off record,
10:30
then they come back back on the record. My question,
10:36
mister Cassell, was what's your best estimate of how much
10:39
money you have made representing victims of Jeffrey Epstein. Answer?
10:44
In which case are we talking about? Question in any case? Combined?
10:48
Total answer? Okay. With regard to the CVR case, that's
10:52
pro bono, no money there. With regard to the other cases,
10:56
I'd like to answer your question, but due to confidentiality
10:59
obligations that have been imposed upon me, by Jeffrey Epstein
11:04
in the course of negotiating those cases. I'm not permitted
11:07
to answer that question. SCROLLA. We're certainly willing to respond
11:11
appropriately to a court order in that regard, but it
11:14
requires a court order to release us from the contractual
11:17
confidentiality obligations that we're under. Question. Is it your testimony,
11:22
mister cassel that there are confidentiality agreements with mister Epstein
11:26
that preclude you from giving the total amount paid without
11:29
breaking it down into particular cases. Answer, I'm sorry, I
11:34
didn't understand. Question. Oh, maybe I wasn't clear. Let me
11:38
do it this way so we can avoid the confidentiality issues.
11:42
In how many cases have you been counseled for a
11:44
person suing mister Epstein alleging that she was a victim?
11:49
Answer council of record. Question put it this way, start
11:52
with the council of record. Answer I believe three. Question okay,
11:57
And in addition to those three, have you assisted other
12:00
council in some way without becoming counsel of record in
12:03
cases by women suing mister Epstein alleging that they had
12:07
been abused? Answer? I believe there is one other case.
12:11
In addition to the council of record case. I'd have
12:14
to double check my record. This is an approximate best recollection.
12:19
Question all right? Answer it's about four. Question, to the
12:24
best of your recollection, your council of record in three cases,
12:27
and you were involved in another case at least one
12:30
other case in which you did not appear as counsel
12:33
of record. Is that correct? Answer? That's my recollection right now?
12:38
Question all right? How many of those cases have been
12:41
resolved at this point? Answer all I recall all four
12:46
having been resolved. Question okay, without telling me the amount?
12:50
Did you receive all four were settled? Is that right?
12:53
Answer correct? Question without telling me the amount? Is it
13:00
correct that in all four of those cases you received
13:02
a legal fee? Answer? I think that starts to call
13:05
for a question. I need to consult with my attorney
13:08
about question simply the question of whether in each of
13:13
them you receive a fee? Answer. I just want to
13:17
is there any problem? He gets cut off by SCROLLA.
13:20
You can respond to that. You can answer yes or
13:22
no to that question the witness, Yes, I receive something.
13:26
Question okay, was the fee and if it's different the cases,
13:30
tell me, but was it contingent on some kind of
13:33
hourly fee. SCROLLA. That does get into attorney client privilege matters. Simpson,
13:38
you're instructing him not to answer SCROLLA the terms of
13:41
the representation or attorney client privilege, I instruct him not
13:45
to answer Simpson. All right. Question, in addition to these
13:49
four cases that have been resolved, are you representing any
13:52
other clients who are alleging in a case seeking monetary
13:56
damages that they were abused by Jeffrey Epstein McAuley. I'm
14:01
going to object to the extent that this seeks any
14:04
information related to or redacted that could be deemed privileged
14:08
or confidential the witness. What's the question? I'm asking whether
14:15
you were involved in any other cases in which claims
14:18
have been made against Jeffrey Epstein for damages that are
14:21
still active that have not been resolved. Answer. So we're
14:25
talking about civil cases on resolved civil cases against Jeffrey
14:29
Epstein right now, question on resolved cases seeking money from
14:33
Jeffrey Epstein SCROLLA. And to the extent that the question
14:37
calls for matters that are of public record, then obviously
14:41
you can respond the witness, right, Yeah, none, question, are
14:45
there and I'm not asking for the name. Are there
14:48
any not of public record. Answer what would be a
14:52
not question? Well, if you had made a claim that's
14:55
not in a suit, for example, answer oh against Epstein?
14:59
Question yeah, answer yeah, No, I don't think there's anything
15:02
no claims against Epstein. Question And it's true, is it
15:06
not that if you're successful in the CVRA case, in
15:10
setting aside the non prosecution agreement, you expect to get
15:14
other clients who will have claims against Jeffrey Epstein. Answer
15:19
in civil claims question claims for damages, claims for money
15:23
from Jeffrey Epstein. Answer, I mean that starts to if
15:27
the non prosecution agreement is set aside. Question yeah, if
15:31
you're successful, answer, I haven't really that sounds pretty speculative.
15:37
I haven't really thought about the civil The focus of
15:40
the cv RA case is criminal. I haven't thought about,
15:43
you know, whether civil claims could somehow arise out of that.
15:47
I mean we're talking about, you know, events that took
15:49
place long ago. There would be statute of limitation issues,
15:53
you know, whether they are viable civil claims at this
15:55
point has not been something that I have, you know,
15:58
given much thought to question. So is it your testimony
16:02
that you have not thought about the question of whether
16:04
success in the CVR case may or result in you
16:09
obtaining additional clients with claims for damages against Jeffrey Epstein. Answer, Yeah,
16:15
that hasn't been something that I focused on. No, all right, folks,
16:19
we're gonna wrap up right here, and in the next
16:21
episode we're gonna pick up where we left off. All
16:24
of the information that goes with this episode can be
16:27
found in the description box. What's up, everyone, and welcome
16:31
to another episode of the Epstein Chronicles. In this episode,
16:35
we're going to get right back to the Paul Cassell
16:37
deposition in the lawsuit against Alan Dershowitz. Question is it correct?
16:44
Is it not that you anticipate that if you're successful
16:47
in setting aside the non prosecution agreement, that the names
16:50
of the additional victims will become known? Did you testify
16:53
to that yesterday? Answer? I must be confused here, I
16:58
don't remember. Question Well, wait, I don't want to you know,
17:03
Let me ask the question. Answer yeah. Question rather than
17:08
my recollection, my question is, do you anticipate that, if
17:12
you're successful in setting aside the non prosecution agreement, that
17:16
the names of additional victims will become known? Answer? Additional
17:21
Epstein victims at this point. Question. Yes, answer again, it's
17:25
pretty speculative. You know the case, you know, the events
17:30
were roughly a decade ago. I mean, we were always
17:32
hoping that there might be somebody additional that would come forward,
17:36
but that hasn't been the focus of the litigation. And
17:40
you always hope that there are Yeah, I mean, any
17:42
time you file a case, I hope some more you know,
17:45
witnesses will come forward to support that case, but that
17:49
hasn't been the focus trying to secure additional witnesses. That
17:53
is a possibility, though, I mean, I think, in fairness
17:56
to your question, that is a possibility that, you know,
17:59
if the case attracts attention and somebody you know says, gosh,
18:04
now that I moved away to escape Epstein, and now
18:07
it's safe for me to come back, or now I
18:10
realize I have a claim. That's always a possibility. I
18:13
certainly wouldn't want to suggest that, you know, we're ruling
18:16
out that possibility. Question, and for the same reason that
18:20
additional witnesses might become available, No, an additional clients might
18:25
become known. Correct answer, Is that a theoretical possibility? Yes. Question,
18:31
In these four cases that you mentioned, the three that
18:35
were which you were counsel of record and one in
18:37
which you were not. Did you meet at any time
18:40
in person with the clients? And if it's different as
18:44
to some others, tell me that but he gets cut off. Yes, question,
18:49
in all four you met with the clients? Answer three
18:52
of the four question? And were those three of the
18:55
three in which you were counsel of record? Answer yes,
18:59
question as of December. Answer, I believe I was counsel
19:03
of record on all three of those. I would have
19:06
to double check. I know I was counsel of record
19:09
in the federal case. The two of them are state cases.
19:12
I believe that it was pro hawk in the state case. Question,
19:16
I won't ask you the names, but in the four cases,
19:19
what are the initials of your clients? Answer? Okay, so
19:23
the he gets cut off question Put it this way,
19:27
how are they identified in the caption that you filed?
19:31
Answer well, also the three that were filed. One was
19:34
the initials SR. I referred to SR yesterday and that
19:38
was Jane Doe case in federal court in front of
19:41
Judge Mera. There were two state claims. I'll identify the
19:45
claims or clients as EW and LM. Question and then
19:50
the fourth one. Answer the fourth one. I believe the
19:53
initial M, and I believe the last initial was B,
19:56
but I may be wrong about the B first initial M. Question. Okay,
20:02
at the time that you filed the jointer motion in
20:04
the federal case, so December thirtieth of twenty fourteen, you
20:09
knew that naming Prince Andrew would generate substantial publicity? Correct answer?
20:14
I knew it would attract a lot of attention. Yeah,
20:16
I mean substantial. We could debate, but sure, I knew
20:19
that there was going you know, once you start exposing
20:22
the extent of the criminal activity, obviously there were going
20:26
to be a lot of people interested. Yes, question, and
20:29
you also know that naming Professor Dershowitz would attract publicity. Answer, Well,
20:34
when you say naming, one of the things that you've
20:36
got to understand is that the names were already in
20:39
the case, both Prince Andrew and Alan Dershowitz. We had
20:43
pending discovery requests for information about both of them. So
20:47
when you say naming them, you know they were already
20:49
named in the case. Now would the additional allegations have
20:53
attracted additional attention? Sure, mister Cassell, is it true? Is
20:58
it not that the filing on December thirtieth, twenty fourteen,
21:02
was the first time that you had ever, yes ever
21:04
on behalf of redacted or any other client accused Professor
21:08
Dershowitz or Prince Andrew of sexual abuse in a public filing. Answer,
21:14
if you're talking about direct allegations, that's correct. Question had
21:19
you ever, well, at no other time you expected when
21:23
you filed the pleading on December thirtieth, twenty fourteen, that
21:26
it would be be something of public record that would
21:29
generate publicity. Correct answer, a public record. The focus was
21:34
not generating publicity. Of course, when you file an allegation
21:37
like that, there certainly would have been we would anticipate
21:41
that there would have been publicity. Absolutely, question, And before
21:45
December thirtieth of twenty fourteen, to the best of your knowledge,
21:49
neither you nor anyone else had told Professor Dershowitz that
21:53
there were allegations that he personally had engaged in sexual misconduct. McCauley,
21:58
I'm going to object to that date if that reveals
22:01
anything that would be privileged between something that would have
22:04
been communicated by the client. Simpson. No, these communications to
22:09
Professor Dershowitz scrolla yeah, and that could very well include
22:14
attorney client privileged communication. Simpson, I'll ask my question. My
22:19
question is, did you ever advise Professor Dershowitz that there
22:23
were allegations that he had engaged himself in sexual misconduct
22:27
with minors? Answer not me personally, no question. Are you
22:31
aware of any email, letter, or other communication from anybody
22:36
that went to Professor Dershowitz that told Professor Dershowitz that
22:40
he had been accused of engaging in misconduct himself. Answer well,
22:45
I mean, there was a deposition request in two thousand
22:48
and nine. There was a deposition request in twenty eleven
22:52
that was accompanied by an exchange of correspondents that said,
22:55
for example, numerous witnesses have placed you in the present
23:00
of Jeffrey Epstein and underage girls. It didn't then go
23:04
on to say and you were committing sexual abuse of them,
23:07
but it said numerous witnesses had had done that. And
23:11
I think a reasonable inference would be that you know,
23:14
you're very sure that a witness and then that also
23:18
raises the possibility of well, I mean, I think Professor
23:21
Dershowitz mentioned yesterday that if you're in the presence of
23:25
a convicted sex offender or a sex offender, and sex
23:28
abuse is going on, you would have obligations, for example,
23:31
at a minimum to report that, and it raises the
23:34
possibility of other criminal activity as well. Question is that
23:40
your testimony, mister Gassell, that telling a person that multiple
23:43
people have identified you as a witness to some activity
23:47
is fair notice that you yourself are accused of engaging
23:50
in criminal misconduct. Answer. I think re characterized the letter
23:56
that went to mister Dershowitz in twenty eleven. The letter,
23:59
as irall, doesn't say he's a witness. It says, if
24:02
I recall, we can double check the language. But I
24:05
believe the language says numerous witnesses have placed you in
24:08
the presence of Jeffrey Epstein, underage girls and Epstein. Then
24:15
you know so at that point, given what we know
24:17
in the case, given that at that point in twenty eleven,
24:21
there had been an ongoing set of allegations against mister Epstein,
24:25
I think your question doesn't take into account this surrounding context,
24:30
not to mention the fact that there had been a
24:31
two thousand and nine deposition request and a twenty thirteen
24:35
document request. Question Okay, I think you accurately characterize the
24:40
communication about the deposition. Request that multiple persons have placed
24:44
you in the presence of minors question correct answer. I
24:49
believe that's my recollection. Numerous witnesses have placed you in
24:52
the presence of sex offender at that point, convicted sex
24:56
offender Jeffrey Epstein, who was convicted of sexually abusing underage
25:01
girls and underage girls, and those are the subjects we
25:05
would like to question you about. And rather than getting
25:08
a response, it says, well, let me clear that all up.
25:11
The response that's received was something along the lines of
25:16
give me more information end quote. I'll decide whether I
25:19
want to cooperate close quote or something along those lines. Question,
25:25
mister Cassell, I'm going to read from the letter itself
25:28
and tell me if it's consistent with your recollection. Scrolla.
25:34
Can you show it to him, Simpson. I'll read it
25:36
and then if he wants to look at it, that'll
25:37
be fine. SCROLLA, thank you. Question. This is a letter
25:42
from mister Scroola to mister Dershowitz, dated August twenty third,
25:46
twenty eleven. The second sentence says, well, I'm going to
25:50
read the whole thing. Scarrolla, Yeah, thank you, scrolla it's short,
25:56
so it would be helpful if you just read the
25:58
whole thing. Question. We do not intend to inquire about
26:03
any privileged communication or attorney work product. We do, however,
26:08
have reasonab believe that you have personally observed Jeffrey Epstein
26:12
in the presence of underage females, and we would like
26:15
the opportunity to question you under oath about those observations.
26:19
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation, Signed Jack Scarola. If
26:24
you'd like to take a look at the letter to
26:26
refresh yourself, you're welcome. Answer great, Thanks, Okay, question now, first,
26:31
you are aware are you not that Professor Dershowitz answered
26:35
that letter and said the assertion that he observed mister
26:38
Epstein in the presence of underage females was not true.
26:42
Answer something along those lines. Yeah, question yeah, and I
26:48
will read it from that letter. Answer okay, that would
26:50
be good. Yeah, that would be great. Question and I
26:54
have never This is a letter from mister Dershowitz to
26:57
mister Scrola, August twenty ninth, twenty eleven. Dear mister Scrola,
27:01
I have never personally observed Jeffrey Epstein in the presence
27:05
of underage females. I do not believe you have any
27:08
reasonable basis for believing that I have. If you have,
27:12
if you claim to have reason to believe, please provide
27:15
me with any such reason. I'm certain I can demonstrate
27:18
to you that it's false. Is that consistent with your
27:22
recollection of the response? Answer? That sounds about right. Yeah. Question,
27:27
so mister Dershowitz did not ignore the letter, he responded
27:30
to it. Correct answer. I think that's right. Question and
27:35
go back to the first letter. Answer. But now if
27:37
we're talking about yeah, that's the one letter and now
27:41
there's a response letter. Right. Question. My question to you
27:45
is does the statement to a person that we have
27:48
reason to believe that you have personally observed another person
27:51
in the presence of underage females and we would like
27:54
to ask you about your observations put the recipient on
27:58
notice that you yourself are accused of criminal conduct and
28:02
abusing minors. Answer, well, it puts you on notice that
28:06
you're a potential, obviously witness to this, and then therefore
28:10
you could have potential involvement. Let me give you a
28:13
simple illustration. It'll take about twenty seconds. Question. Well, let
28:17
me back up first. My first question though, if you
28:20
can answer the question SCROLLA no, I'm sorry. The witness
28:24
is entitled to complete his response. If you don't believe
28:27
it to be unresponsive, you can move to strike it,
28:29
but he's entitled to complete it. SCROLLA, go ahead and
28:33
complete your response, Simpson, can we can you give an
28:37
explanation but a yes or no? With an explanation SCROLLA,
28:41
you already got that part. Could we now have the
28:44
completion of the response? Cassell. Here's a simple illustration I
28:50
think makes it pretty clear. If somebody says, we have
28:53
observed you in the presence of a quilo of cocaine,
28:56
we would like to question you about the presence about
28:59
your observations this that doesn't directly state that you are
29:02
a drug user or a drug dealer, but it certainly
29:05
puts you on notice that you're associated with that criminal
29:08
activity and somebody is going to question you about it
29:12
in the context of the case. To say, you have
29:14
been observed by numerous witnesses in the presence of a
29:18
convicted sex offender and underage girls, and we would like
29:21
to talk to you about those observations. I think that
29:24
puts you on notice that you're in jeopardy of criminal activity,
29:28
particularly when you combine that with the fact that there
29:32
is a duty to report child abuse in many states
29:34
in the country, including the state of Florida, and so
29:38
that if observations were such that they would give rise
29:41
to a reasonable inference that sex abuse was of children
29:44
was going on, and you're obligated to report it. As
29:48
I think mister Dershowitz conceded yesterday, I think that puts
29:51
you on notice that those kinds of things are being alleged.
29:55
All right, folks, we're gonna wrap up right here, and
29:57
in the next episode we're gonna pick up where we
29:59
left off. All of the information that goes with this
30:02
episode can be found in the description box. What's up, everyone,
30:06
and welcome to another episode of the Epstein Chronicles. In
30:10
this episode, we're going to pick up where we left
30:12
off with the Paul Cassell deposition in the lawsuit against
30:17
Alan Dershowitz. Question. So first, the letter itself, the letter
30:21
from mister Scrola, simply says you were personally observed Jeffrey
30:26
Epstein in the presence of underage females. Correct answer, correct question.
30:32
It does not say you witnessed the abuse of any miners.
30:35
We have reason to believe you observed abuse of miners.
30:39
Answer if those words do not appear there. But come on,
30:42
we know, we know in the context of the case
30:44
when somebody is asking to take a deposition about your
30:47
observation of young girls who weren't talking about preparations for
30:52
birthday parties. They were talking about sexual abuse of children,
30:57
and that was what mister Dershowitz was going to be
30:59
asked about, and he did not take that opportunity to
31:02
try to clear the record. Instead, we are, you know
31:05
here today because among other reasons, he wasn't deposed. Then
31:10
question I want to comment, I'm just a little bit
31:13
now nonplussed, so I want to come back to this again. Answer, well,
31:18
I have to tell you I'm a little bit nonplus
31:20
that somebody would say that letter doesn't put you on
31:23
notice that you're potentially involved in criminal activity. I mean,
31:27
come on, question my question, wasn't potentially involved in criminal activity?
31:33
We disagree about whether it does that answer Okay, I
31:37
think it does. Question I suspect that's how you read it. Answer.
31:42
I think that it puts you on notice in the
31:44
context of a country which has required people to report
31:48
the sexual abuse of children and somebody wants to talk
31:52
about you and your observations of a convicted sex offender
31:56
with underage girls. That's going to be one of the
32:00
subjects that's going to be discussed. Yes. Question, My question
32:04
was my initial question was do the statements in this
32:08
letter put the reader on notice that you personally are
32:11
accused of abusing minors yourself, not that you have been
32:14
in some knowledge or evidence that someone else did it,
32:17
but that you yourself did it. Is that a way
32:21
to give fair notice? Answer? Well, in fair notice? In
32:24
what context you know? Is he on notice that a
32:28
lawsuit is going to be filed the next day? Simply
32:30
from that piece that letter alone, they are on notice?
32:34
I mean, I think that puts you on notice that
32:37
there are serious allegations afoot, and it would be in
32:40
your best interest if you hadn't done anything to show
32:42
up attend a deposition. Let all the facts come out
32:46
so that everybody can know them. Question. Would you agree
32:49
that accusing someone of themselves abusing a minor is different
32:53
than accusing someone of having knowledge that somebody else did it.
32:57
Answer yes, question, and to accuse one of abusing a
33:00
minor is a serious, serious accusation of criminal conduct personal
33:05
criminal conduct, not just failing to report somebody else, but
33:09
you yourself are abusing people. Answer, Oh yeah, Scrolla, are
33:14
you suggesting that that's not criminal conduct? Simpson? My question
33:18
stands question. What is the answer to that answer? It's
33:23
a very serious charge. I agree, that's why we're all
33:26
here today. Question Okay, And if you wanted to put
33:29
someone on fair notice that they're accused themselves of being
33:33
a sex offender, a criminal who has abused children, wouldn't
33:36
you tell them that? Answer that speculative question, because that
33:41
letter was designed to try and collect information about an
33:44
international sex trafficking organization, and so as to you know,
33:49
I'm not going to speculate as to why mister Scarola
33:52
wrote it that way, but my sense, based on the
33:54
public record, is that he was trying to get as
33:57
much information as he could about what Jeffrey Epstein and
34:01
his criminal associates were doing, and he thought that mister
34:04
Dershowitz would have information and was trying to collect that. Now,
34:09
whether the tentacles of the organization would extend so that
34:13
they wrapped around mister Dershowitz himself, I guess, was the
34:17
subject that mister Scarrola I'm assuming was hoping to explore,
34:21
but mister Dershowitz prevented that opportunity. Question And mister Dershowitz,
34:26
you knew had been mister Epstein's attorney. Correct answer, correct question,
34:32
And you knew, just as we have seen here today
34:34
with multiple assertions of privilege, that he could not testify
34:38
about anything he learned as an attorney. Answer, Oh, he
34:42
could testify. And the letter itself says, we're not going
34:45
to ask you about any communication. We're going to ask
34:48
you about observations of sex abuse by a convicted sex
34:52
offender and your personal knowledge of that. Mister Scrola is
34:57
a very good attorney, and I'm sure all his questions
35:00
that we saw the last couple of days would have
35:02
been very narrowly focused on observations about this criminal organization
35:07
and what they were doing. Question and so to the
35:11
bottom line is at your view your sworn testimony. This
35:14
letter of August twenty three, twenty eleven, put mister Dershowitz,
35:18
Professor Dershowitz on fair notice that he was being accused
35:23
of being a sex offender himself. Answer, we've gone over this.
35:27
I think it put him on fair notice that there
35:29
were serious questions being raised about what he knew about
35:33
this criminal organization, what the potential criminal responsibility he had
35:37
for failure to report sexual abuse of a child, as
35:41
well as other possibilities. Simpson, I'm going to move to
35:45
strike as non responsive question. My question is a very
35:49
narrow one. Whether this letter, in your opinion under oath,
35:52
fairly put Professor Dershowitz on notice that he himself was
35:57
accused of abusing minors. Answer again, that's a vague question.
36:02
I've tried to give you the best answer i can.
36:05
That was certainly a potential area of questioning. I think
36:08
that puts them on notice that it would have been
36:10
in his best interest to appear to answer the questions. Simpson,
36:15
I'm going to object to the answer again as nonresponsive question.
36:20
It's a really simple question. Does that letter put mister
36:24
Dershowitz on fair notice that he's accused of being a
36:28
sex offender himself? Scrolla objection repetitious to the extent that
36:34
you can improve upon the answer. You can improve upon
36:37
the answer. If you can't, all you need to do
36:39
is say that, Casselle, I'll try to obviously I want
36:44
to be responsive question. I'll ask you a different question. Answer.
36:49
I don't think that's answer no question, because you're including
36:53
vague items like fair notice and those sort of things.
36:56
But go ahead ask your question. I mean, go ahead question.
37:00
You're a former federal judge, answer right, question, a former
37:05
Supreme Court law clerk answer yes, question, a professor at
37:10
a law school answer yes. Question. Reading as the reading
37:15
language of this later in your opinion, does the language
37:18
itself put the recipient on notice that the recipient is
37:22
accused of abusing miners himself? Answer? It puts them on
37:26
notice that it's going to be a potential subject of
37:29
inquiry at the deposition. Question. So your answer then is yes,
37:35
it puts the person on notice. That's your reading answer.
37:39
I think you're putting words in my mouth. You're trying
37:42
to ask, you know, a question that, on the one
37:45
hand you're suggesting is narrow and on the other hand
37:48
is broad. I mean, this is probably the simplest way
37:50
to answer that question. If I had gotten that letter,
37:54
I would have said, schedule the deposition in the next
37:56
twenty four hours and come on down here now, and
37:59
I will be available for the week. That's what I
38:02
would have said if I had gotten that letter. Simpson
38:06
moved to strike as non responsive question, is it your testimony?
38:11
You can't answer yes or no whether that letter, on
38:14
its face put the recipient on notice that the recipient
38:18
is accused himself of having abused miners. Can you answer
38:21
that yes or no? Answer? No. I think a yes
38:25
or no answer would be misleading given the context of
38:28
the case. Question you referred in your earlier testimony to
38:32
strike that for a moment. You referred in your earlier
38:35
testimony to an article that appeared today regarding Professor Dershowitz's
38:40
deposition testimony. Correct answer, I don't think so. Question. Okay,
38:46
you're aware that, Well, perhaps it was redacted McAuley who
38:49
referred to it. Do you recall that there being a
38:52
reference this morning to an article being published about Professor
38:55
dershowitz testimony? McCauley, Oh, I'm sorry, it was me. I
38:59
object to that extent only to the extent it revealed
39:03
something public that had been stated in public. Mister Simpson, okay,
39:08
and you recall that answer, Yeah, I recall the objection.
39:12
I think there's an article that came out yesterday or
39:15
a communication. I can't remember exactly where I know that
39:18
I received a communication either through publication or in some
39:23
other way from you know, I became aware that there
39:26
was a statement what's the name of the outfit, it's
39:30
the Business Investor SCROLLA Daily Business Review, the Witness Daily
39:35
Business Review, that was stating that David Boyce was saying
39:39
that the representations made by mister Dershowitz were false SCROLLA
39:44
and I did just coach the Witness. I apologize, Cassell.
39:49
I'm sorry just for the name of that question. In
39:52
your earlier testimony you referred to it. You didn't recall
39:55
the name, but you referred to it as reputable answer.
40:00
That's right, That's the one we're talking about, right, question right,
40:04
And in that article that states McCauley referring to our
40:07
colleague later issued a statement on Boy's behalf, saying, because
40:11
the discussion that mister Boyce had with mister Dershowitz were
40:15
expressly privileged settlement discussions, mister boys will not, at least
40:19
at this time, describe what was actually said. However, mister
40:23
Boyce does state that mister dershowitz description of what was
40:27
said is not true. Answer. That's the one question you
40:31
read that answer? Yeah, I learned of it. I don't
40:35
remember whether I read it or how I got it.
40:37
But yeah, that's the one question in light of that
40:40
statement by mister Boyce, would you agree that any privilege
40:44
has been waived? Answer? I would not. That's a newspaper
40:49
article question. It's a quote. Let me clarify. That's a
40:52
statement quoting a statement issued by McCauley and quoting mister
40:57
Boyce as saying, mister Dershowitz description of what was said
41:00
is not true. So that's a public statement by mister
41:03
boys saying that mister Dershowitzz testimony is not true. Is
41:08
that a waiver in your opinion? Answer? No, that would
41:12
require I'm just putting you on notice talking about notice.
41:16
If you want me to, I could give you the
41:18
law professor answer as to why that's not a waiver
41:21
off the top of my head. I can start talking
41:23
about that. Answer. No, I don't need that or question
41:28
I should say sorry, answer right. That's why I just
41:31
wanted to let you know. Question. But I really want
41:34
to clarify, and I wanted to clarify. He gets cut
41:37
off by Cassell. Answer, let me just be clear, so
41:40
the record is clear. I absolutely do not believe that's
41:43
a waiver, and I could give you an extended answer,
41:46
but I know time is drawing short. Question, but you
41:51
what I want to clarify is that, notwithstanding that statement,
41:54
you will continue to answer all my questions about the
41:57
substance of the discussion with mister boys. You're continuing not
42:01
to answer McCauley. Yes, Scrola, you said you, and now
42:07
it's just everybody talking all over each other. Finally we
42:10
get down to miss McCauley, who gets a full statement out.
42:14
We disagree with your characterization of that as a waiver.
42:17
It was a statement that was issued in order to
42:19
stop the waivers that mister Dershowitz was trying to engage in.
42:23
We don't agree that's a waiver, and we will not
42:26
allow any testimony regarding those communications. Mister Simpson, Okay, I
42:31
disagree with that position and the characterizations, but I just
42:35
wanted to clarify on the record. I didn't have to
42:38
ask those questions again. Scrolla sure, McCauley, I understand, Simpson.
42:43
And obviously our position is that if it hadn't already
42:47
been if it hadn't already been waived, either it wasn't
42:50
privileged or hadn't been waived. And now it's waived, mister Simpson.
42:56
I don't have a question the witness, I know, but
42:59
I think now in light of since the record has
43:01
these characters, I want to put one sentence into the record,
43:05
which is, it doesn't seem to me that an attorney
43:08
can inject into a deposition confidential settlement proceedings, have somebody
43:13
deny that and then say, aha, they're no longer a
43:16
confidential settlement proceedings. So gets caught off by Simpson. That's
43:20
not a pending question. I moved to strike the comments
43:24
the witness, right. I just didn't want your comments to
43:26
reflect back on my earlier answer. All right, folks, we're
43:29
gonna wrap up right here, and in the next episode
43:31
we're gonna pick up where we left off. All of
43:34
the information that goes with this episode can be found
43:38
in the description box.