Latest / The Vault: The Epstein Files / Mega Edition: Paul Cassell's Deposition In Cassell/Edwards V. Dershowitz (Part 10-12) (6/21/26)

Transcript

Mega Edition: Paul Cassell's Deposition In Cassell/Edwards V. Dershowitz (Part 10-12) (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, I want to go back,
0:14
mister Cassell, get back to yesterday's exhibits. I'm going to
0:18
hand you what was mark yesterday as Cassel exhibit number two,
0:22
which is a joint oer motion. And when you have
0:25
that in front of you? Do you have that in
0:27
front of you? Answer? I do? Question all right? Would
0:31
you find my copy if you would turn to page
0:34
bottom of page three, top of page four, Do you
0:37
have that? Answer? Got it? Question? All right? I'm going
0:40
to read it. Tell me if I've read it correctly?
0:43
Answer okay. Question Epstein also sexually trafficked the then minor
0:48
Jane Doe and that's redacted correct answer yes, question making
0:54
her available for sex to politically connected and financially powerful people.
0:58
Epstein's purposes lending Jane Doe, along with other young girls
1:02
to such powerful people were to ingratiate himself with them
1:06
for business, personal, political and financial gain, as well as
1:11
to obtain potential blackmail information. Did I read that correctly.
1:15
Answer you did. Answer, what did you mean by obtained
1:18
potential blackmail information? Answer? Okay, let me double check. Once
1:23
the criminal organization had put the bait out, so to speak,
1:26
to various people, and they took the bait. These are
1:29
young girls who were being sexually abused. Once the criminal
1:33
organization had gotten people to sexually abuse these young girls,
1:37
at that point they had information that they could use
1:40
to blackmail those people and then get favors in exchange.
1:44
And that's Epstein at the head of the organization, would
1:47
be the one who would benefit most directly from the
1:50
blackmail information. Question and by blackmail information, do you mean
1:54
that mister Epstein then had information that he could threaten
1:57
to disclose if the other person didn't do what Epstein
2:00
asked them to do. Answer precisely. Question as of December thirtieth,
2:05
twenty fourteen, if redacted had access to publicity, she had
2:10
exactly the same ability to blackmail people. Isn't that true? Answer?
2:14
Absolutely not. A billionaire has far more resources than a
2:18
victim of child sex abuse, particularly one that's been forced
2:22
into hiding in Australia to escape the criminal organization. So
2:27
for you to suggest that redacted had the same ability
2:30
to blackmail somebody as Jeffrey Epstein, Is I think preposterous question?
2:36
As of redacted had the same ability as Jeffrey Epstein
2:40
to reveal publicly the names of the people who she
2:43
says sexually abused her, as did mister Epstein. Is that true? Answer?
2:48
You're talking about physical ability to speak words? They both
2:51
have the same physical ability to speak the English language. Yes, question,
2:56
And in fact, before at least three years before or
3:00
December thirtieth, twenty fourteen, she had the ability to be
3:04
quoted in an article, more than one article in the
3:07
Daily Mail in London about her experiences. Correct answer, that's
3:11
correct question? And am I correct that of December thirtieth,
3:15
twenty fourteen, you didn't know whether she was paid for
3:19
that interview or not. Answer? I wasn't sure. That's right question.
3:23
And after December thirtieth, twenty fourteen, the references to Prince
3:27
Andrew and Professor Dershowitz generated international publicity. Isn't that true? Answer? Okay? Yes,
3:34
I mean in a general sense, I could ask which allegations,
3:38
but these allegations did generate publicity? Certainly question? Yes, the
3:43
allegations in your jointerer motion that Prince Andrew and Professor
3:47
Dershowitz had abused or redacted then known as Jane do
3:50
number three generated a buyerstorm of publicity? Did it not answer?
3:56
It generated a lot of publicity. Yes, question, and within
4:00
that you were participating in an attempt to arrange an
4:03
interview with ABC News. Isn't that true? Answer? That was
4:08
within days. The chronology is important here. The allegations were
4:11
filed in the pleating on December thirtieth. Several days after that,
4:16
mister Dershowitz then took to the airwaves to denounce not
4:19
only Brad and me, but particularly of concern to me,
4:23
was redacted, this victim of sex trafficking. And at that point,
4:28
as one of her attorneys, I was looking for a
4:30
way to respond to that media assault on her by
4:33
mister Dershowitz. Mister Simpson moved to strike as non responsive question.
4:40
Within twenty four hours of this pleading being filed, there
4:43
was publicity about the allegations against Prince Andrew and mister Dershowitz.
4:48
Professor Dershowitz, isn't that correct? Answer? I don't know the
4:52
exact timeframe, but you know roughly that time sounds right
4:56
about right question. If Professor Dershowitz had never said anything,
5:01
wouldn't you expect that these allegations as to Prince Andrew
5:05
in particular and Professor Dershowitz would get substantial publicity. Answer
5:11
there was, he gets cut off by Scrolla. Excuse me
5:14
to the extent that the question calls for speculation. I object,
5:19
mister Simpson. No, I'm asking for a state of mind
5:22
when he filed the document the witness, there's no doubt
5:26
that he gets cut off by Scrolla. So the question
5:29
is at the time of the filing. Mister Simpson, please
5:33
do not coach the witness Scrolla. No, I'm not coaching them.
5:37
I just want to understand the question. You're asking what
5:40
his state of mind was at the time of the
5:42
filing Simpson? Did he anticipate Scrolla? Because the other question
5:47
was what's your position today? Simpson? Mister Scrolla, really, Scarrolla,
5:55
that's a different question. So I just want to know
5:58
which one you're asking. Do you want to know is
6:00
state of mind men or his state of mind today? Simpson.
6:04
I'll take that as an objection to the form of
6:06
the question. Scrolla. Once again, it's a request for a
6:11
clarification of an ambiguous question, Simpson, it's coaching the witness
6:18
question as of he gets cut off by Cassel. Yeah,
6:22
I don't need any coaching question. Let me ask the
6:25
question as of December thirtieth, that's true as of we
6:29
agree that's coaching. Answer, But that wasn't coaching. That wasn't coaching.
6:34
So the suggestion that it's coaching it is not fair question. Okay,
6:38
we disagree. As of December thirtieth, twenty fourteen, did you
6:42
anticipate that naming Prince Andrew in a public filing as
6:46
having abused or redacted would generate substantial publicity? Answer? Substantial
6:51
is a debatable word, but certainly it's going to generate publicity, Yes,
6:56
publicity about the allegations. Question, and the allegations are that
7:02
Prince Andrew had sexually abused redacted? Correct answer, that was
7:06
one of the allegations in here. Sure. Question, and the
7:09
allegation that Professor Dershowitz had sexually abused redacted? Correct answer,
7:15
that's right. What we were, what we were starting to
7:18
document and allege here was the terrible things that Epstein's
7:22
criminal organization had done. Question. Let me refer you to
7:26
page six of your filing. It's the first full paragraph.
7:30
Answer yep question, I'm going to read it. Epstein also
7:34
trafficked Jane Don number three for sexual purposes to many
7:38
other powerful men answer okay, question, including numerous prominent American politicians,
7:45
powerful business executives, foreign presidents, a well known prime minister,
7:50
and other world leaders. Jane Epstein required Jane Don number
7:54
three to describe the events that she had with these
7:58
men so that he could potentially black Melo, Did I
8:01
read that correctly? Answer? You did? Question with respect to blackmail,
8:06
the ability to blackmail? Is that the same potential we
8:09
talked about a moment ago in your testimony. Answer sure, question,
8:14
And what you're referring to there is he gets cut
8:16
off by Cassel roughly Yeah. I mean, if there's something
8:20
that you want clarified, go ahead and clarify it. Question.
8:24
I just wanted to make sure I understand correctly that
8:27
when you refer to Epstein requiring redacted to describe these
8:30
events so that he could potentially blackmailb them, what you
8:34
had in mind was Epstein wanted to know what redacted
8:37
did with these men so that he had the ability
8:40
to threaten to disclose it if they didn't do what
8:43
he wanted them to do. Answer that was part of it. Yes,
8:47
questioned and isn't it true you could have accomplished in
8:51
terms of furthering redacted's legal interests, You could have accomplished
8:55
exactly the same thing by saying Epstein also trafficked Jane
8:59
do number three three for sexual purposes to other well
9:02
known men period. Answer no, I don't think so. Question Okay,
9:07
you felt it furthered her legal interest to specify American politicians,
9:12
powerful business executives, foreign presidents, a well known prime minister,
9:17
and world leaders. That was you believe that further her
9:21
legal interest? Answer? Yeah. Question did you also anticipate that
9:27
would titillate the press, so to speak, so there would
9:31
be a lot of speculation on who the people were.
9:34
Answer that wasn't the focus of the comments. No, question
9:39
you said it wasn't the focus. Did you realize that
9:41
would happened? Answer sure, I mean this was a case
9:44
that had been already This litigation had been going on
9:48
at that point for seven years, and lots of people
9:50
were following it. The case is one of the most
9:53
egregious examples of a violation of crime victim's rights in
9:57
the history of the country. Against that context, Yes, there
10:01
was going to be people interested in every word that
10:04
was going into the pleting, whether we had gone more
10:07
broadly or more narrowly than we did. People were going
10:10
to be interested in this question. And as of December thirtieth,
10:14
twenty fourteen, redacted had the same ability to disclose who
10:19
these individuals were publicly as did Jeffrey Epstein. Correct because
10:23
she had personal knowledge of who they were. Answer she
10:26
had the ability to speak words. But again, I think
10:29
it's preposterous to say that a victim of sex trafficking
10:32
has the same power as a sex trafficker to disclose information.
10:37
For example, redacted could be attacked, and I think, as
10:40
we're talking about yesterday, we have seen the evidence of
10:43
the kind of attack that powerful people can mount against
10:46
the victims of sex trafficking. So to say that the
10:50
young women in sex trafficking schemes have the same power
10:53
as their traffickers to do this, I'm sorry, I'm going
10:56
to have to take a break. All right, folks, We're
10:59
gonna wrap up right here, and in the next episode
11:01
dealing with the topic, we're going to pick up where
11:03
we left off. All of the information that goes with
11:06
This episode can be found in the description box. What's up, everyone,
11:11
and welcome to another episode of the Epstein Chronicles. In
11:15
this episode, we're going to pick up where we left
11:17
off with the Paul Cassell deposition in the lawsuit against
11:22
Alan Dershowitz. Question. Had you finished your answer? Mister Gassell answer?
11:28
I think I had? Question? Okay answer. Thank you for
11:32
letting me take a break. I appreciate it. Mister Scrolla,
11:36
could you just read back the last question for me.
11:38
I want to orientate myself as to where we are.
11:41
Thank you Scrolla. Yeah, I didn't think the answer was
11:45
he gets caught off by Gasell. I guess I was
11:48
mid sentenced, So I think I will just stick with
11:51
the same word preposterous. One thing that occurred to me
11:55
during the break in the context of this case is
11:57
that there had been allegations at Epstein was part of
12:00
the sex trafficking organization, had video cameras mounted throughout many
12:05
of his mansions, and so whereas a young woman could say,
12:09
or a young girl could say, look, I was a
12:12
victim of sex abuse, people would attack her, people wouldn't
12:15
believe her, and unless she had you know, corroborating evidence.
12:18
People would say, well, look it didn't happen. And so
12:21
Epstein had managed to collect apparently a lot of videotapes
12:24
and other kinds of information that would have been given
12:27
them the ability to make the blackmail kinds of charges
12:31
that the girls that he was trafficking would not have
12:33
the ability to do. Simpson, mister Gassell, didn't you testify
12:38
yesterday that any videotapes from mister Epstein's house had been destroyed? Answer?
12:44
When I used the word destroyed, I probably should have
12:47
been more precise. They'd been concealed from law enforcement, is
12:50
what I meant. That when Palm Beach police went up
12:54
to Epstein's mansion, they found surveillance cameras and other cameras.
12:58
I can't remember exactly where the cameras were, but they
13:00
found surveillance cameras, and when they look for the tapes
13:03
associated with those cameras, I use the word destroyed, And
13:07
as I say, I probably should have said they were missing,
13:10
and so they were never able to locate those those
13:13
missing videotapes. Question. So, as of December thirtieth, of twenty fourteen,
13:18
to your knowledge, there are no videotapes available answer, there
13:22
are no videotapes available to law enforcement or to Brad
13:25
and his pro bono crime victim attorneys to help document
13:28
our case. We were trying to get those, and we
13:31
were continuing to try to get those. But obviously Epstein
13:35
and his criminal associates have had the ability to destroy
13:38
the evidence that's been what we're trying to gather. Question
13:43
and your answer A couple of questions. Answer, I'm sorry,
13:47
I shouldn't say destroyed. They have been able to conceal
13:51
would probably be a more accurate term the evidence that
13:54
we are trying together. Question the question an answer your
13:59
answer to my question A couple of questions. Ago you
14:02
talked about whether mister Epstein and redacted would have the
14:06
same or equal ability to disclose what these prominent politicians, etc.
14:10
Had done? Correct answer, correct question, without attempting to make
14:15
any comparison. Would you agree? Would you not that have
14:18
as December thirtieth, twenty fourteen, redacted had the ability to
14:23
name the names of people who were referenced in the document.
14:26
Answer physical ability. Yes. Question, Well, let me ask you this.
14:31
You say a well known prime minister? Is that Prime
14:33
Minister Barack MS McCauley I'm going to instruct you not
14:37
to reveal any attorney client communication you had with redacted
14:41
on the specifics of her council to you about those individuals.
14:47
Question is one of the other one of the other
14:50
powerful business executives Les Wexner McCauley Again, same instruction, mister Simpson. Okay,
14:59
now you mentioned yesterday, well a moment ago, you testified
15:02
that these, in your view, these allegations about other powerful
15:05
men furthered redacted's legal position in the case. Correct answer, yes, question,
15:12
and it's also your position. I assume that the allegations
15:15
regarding Professor Dershowitz and Prince Andrew furthered redacted's legal position.
15:20
Is that right? Answer absolutely. Question. Does the fact that
15:24
Judge Mara struck those allegations as impertinent, scandalous and completely
15:29
irrelevant to the case cause you to reassess scrolla? Excuse me?
15:34
Is that intended to be a direct quote? Simpson? Back up?
15:38
What is your understanding of Judge Mara's ruling with respect
15:41
to these allegations about Professor Dershowitz and Prince Andrew. Answer
15:46
that they were premature. Question that's your understanding of disorder?
15:50
Answer yes, question okay, answer, and maybe I should see
15:55
some skepticism there, So let me explain why I think
15:58
those allegations are appropriate. Question. Well, we'll just pull the
16:04
order itself. Answer. Sure, question at the appropriate time. But first,
16:08
your understanding is that the judge didn't find that those
16:11
allegations at the time that they were made were so
16:14
irrelevant to the case that they should be stricken from
16:17
the public record. Answer in that pleading at the time,
16:21
I remember we had our brief. Let me explain the
16:25
nine reasons why we thought that those allegations were relevant
16:28
to the case, since I think your question calls for
16:31
that question. Are those the nine reasons you gave yesterday? Answer? No,
16:36
I didn't have a chance to question. Are they the
16:39
nine reasons that are set forth in your brief? Answer?
16:42
They are. They're the nine reasons that are set forth
16:46
in the brief question Okay, And Judge Marra had that
16:49
brief in front of them when he held that these
16:53
allegations were so not relevant to the issues before the
16:56
court that they would be stricken and not part of
16:58
the public record. Answer at the time in that particular pleading,
17:03
I think you're mischaracterizing Judge Mara's ruling in its entirety.
17:07
He specifically said that the allegations could be reasserted if
17:11
they were relevant to issues that are that were coming up.
17:15
And so, in following that ruling, we went to the
17:18
US Attorney's Office, propounded discovery requests and said, look, we
17:22
believe you're sitting on information that Dershowitz was, as you know,
17:26
connected with the criminal trafficking here. We would like you
17:29
to produce those documents. And rather than say, hey, we
17:32
don't have any such documents, the US Attorney's Office gave
17:35
us the response indicating to our view that there were
17:39
such documents. And as you know, since you're one of
17:41
mister Dershowitz attorneys, we have drafted a pleading now to
17:45
try and collect that information federal law enforcement agencies have
17:49
collected and to figure out the appropriate way to litigate
17:53
that so that we can get that information and move
17:55
forward in the case. That's just one example of how
17:59
the allegations, if they were premature at that point, are
18:03
no longer going to be premature as the case moves along. Question,
18:07
is it or is it not your understanding that Judge
18:10
Marrow ruled that the allegation and the pleading in front
18:13
of you were so irrelevant to the pleading in which
18:16
they were stated that they should be stricken from the
18:19
public record. Answer, in that particular pleading at that particular time,
18:24
that's right. Question does that cause you to reassess in
18:28
any way having filed this document? Answer? Well, I think certainly,
18:33
as a tactical matter, we should have reserved the allegations
18:36
for another motion. I think that's you know, certainly. Now
18:40
we are sort of speculating would we have done something
18:43
different if we knew that? And the answer to that
18:45
is sure, we would have tried to do something that
18:48
Judge Marra thought was appropriate way to handle it. Question
18:52
and Judge Marra also reminded counsel of their rule eleven obligations.
18:56
Didn't he answer? That's right? Yeah? And did it cause
19:01
you to question not tactics, but whether you were acting
19:04
properly in filing this SCROLLA? Excuse me, Simpson cuts him off.
19:10
I'm just asking if it caused him to reassess SCROLLA.
19:13
I understand what you're asking, and you're asking him about
19:16
his mental process in connection with pending litigation. That's work product.
19:21
I instruct you not to answer that question, Simpson, all right,
19:25
you testified yesterday that one reason you found the filing
19:28
of the complaint on behalf of Jane Doe one h two,
19:31
who is redacted by Bob Joseph Berg, and why that
19:35
was significant was that Bob Joseph Berg had been selected
19:38
by the United States Attorney of the Southern District of
19:41
Florida to represent victims. Correct answer, Yes, through the NPA. Yeah,
19:47
there was an apparatus that led to his selection. Question
19:51
and does that answer reflect holding the US Attorney for
19:54
the Southern District of Florida in that office in the
19:57
highest regard? Answer? Sure? Do you contend at the time
20:02
the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida
20:04
negotiated the MPa, they knew that Professor Dershowitz himself had
20:09
been involved in abuse of miners. Answer. I don't know
20:13
exactly what information they had. I do know that we
20:16
had been propounding discovery requests on all of the subjects,
20:20
including Professor dershowitz involvement. When the US Attorney knew they
20:24
are asserting privilege over that, I would wish that they
20:28
would waive privilege or at least provide the information to
20:30
pro bono crime victims. Attorneys that they have so that
20:34
we can get to the bottom of this. But there
20:36
have been a NonStop series of assertions of privileges and
20:40
other barriers interposed against us in this case, and I
20:44
think inappropriately. So so we have been arguing that now
20:48
for a number of years. Question, would you agree with
20:51
me that the United States Attorney's Office had been aware
20:54
Professor Dershowitz had engaged in sexual misconduct with miners or
20:58
himself observed mister vain do so that it would have
21:02
been improper and unethical for them to let mister Professor
21:05
Dershowitz negotiate the terms of the NPA with them. Answer,
21:10
if they had direct knowledge of that, sure, I mean,
21:13
but the realities are a little bit more complicated. In
21:16
the Professor Dershowitz over the last couple of days has
21:20
frequently used the word continuum, and so if they they
21:24
are certain of that, it absolutely would have been unethical.
21:28
The question is, well, what if they had suspicion or
21:32
what if, you know, a reasonable suspicion or a possible suspicion.
21:36
Those are the kinds of dimensions that you've got to,
21:39
you know, take into account in the real world about
21:42
you know, what they what they would have done. I mean,
21:45
it seems pretty clear, for example, that at some point,
21:48
you know, later on, they got a black book in
21:50
which Professor Dershowitz's name had been circled. Now, what they
21:54
did with that information, I don't know. Question. And what
21:59
they did with the fact that Courtney Love and Donald
22:01
Trump were circled, you don't know. Also correct answer. That's right,
22:06
fair point question, But somehow it's suspicious as to mister Dershowitz,
22:11
but not as to anyone else. Mister Scrolla, objection, argumentative, Cassell.
22:18
I'm glad to argue on that point. Let me because
22:21
they Simpson, I will draw the question, Cassell, all right,
22:26
because I would have had a substantial argument on that Simpson.
22:30
I always draw the question, Scrolla, and I always draw
22:33
the objection, Simpson. Thank you, all right, folks. We're gonna
22:37
wrap up this episode right here, and in the next
22:39
episode dealing with the topic, we're gonna pick up where
22:41
we left off. All the information that goes with this
22:44
episode can be found in the description box. What's up, everyone,
22:49
and welcome to another episode of the Epstein Chronicles. In
22:53
this episode, we're gonna pick up where we left off
22:56
with Lapaul Cassell deposition in the lawsuit and Stalindershowitz. Question,
23:02
at the time that you filed this joinder exhibit to
23:06
you knew that the United States Attorney's Office had denied
23:09
having any contact any documents reflecting any contact with Prince Andrew.
23:14
Isn't that true? Answer? There were various discovery requests that
23:18
had been propounded, and I think with regard to one
23:22
they had denied. And my recollection is with regard to
23:25
another where there had been an assertion of privilege. Question,
23:29
is it not true that before December thirtieth, twenty fourteen,
23:34
in response to a request asking the government, are there
23:37
any documents reflecting contact with or by Prince Andrew regarding
23:42
the NPA, the government represented there were none. Answer with
23:46
regard you're talking about RFPs request for a production of documents,
23:51
I believe that's correct question. And on December thirtieth, twenty fourteen,
23:56
knowing that you named Prince Andrew in this motion, correct answer,
24:00
correct question. And is it your testimony that you believe
24:04
that Prince Andrew somehow attempted to influence the negotiation of
24:08
the MPa in the United States? As to mister Epstein, answer,
24:13
I don't have direct evidence of that, but I certainly
24:16
believe I have a good faith basis along with my
24:18
co counsul to explore that subject and tried to see
24:22
how someone who is fifth in line to the British
24:25
throne might have been able to use his contacts and
24:28
power that he has to influence a disposition in the
24:32
crime victims rights that case, that it would have been
24:34
favorable to one of his friends and potentially favorable to himself. Question,
24:40
and you have that view, notwithstanding that the government had
24:43
represented they had no record of that answer. No, no, no, no, no,
24:47
let's not Let's not slip and try and get me
24:50
to admit something that is not what the record reflects.
24:53
The government said that they did not have documents. They
24:56
did not say they didn't have any information along those lines.
25:00
To the contrary, they asserted a whole series of privileges
25:04
every time we tried to get information along these lines.
25:07
So the fact that they didn't have a letter signed
25:10
Prince Andrew saying please do the best you can for
25:13
this convicted sex offender is one thing. That's the request
25:16
for production of documents. But they never said that they
25:21
had something along those lines. Had never happened, and to
25:24
the contrary, we were faced with assertions of privilege over roughly,
25:28
if I remember correctly, over ten thousand pages of documents.
25:32
We're a whole host of privileges were being asserted. Question,
25:36
do you think it's credible that the United States Attorney's
25:38
Office would be discussing an NPA with a member of
25:41
the British royal family. Answer? Not directly, but there are
25:45
certainly are possibilities of surrogates. Somebody who is that powerful
25:50
certainly wouldn't go at it directly. What they would probably
25:54
do is try to find the best lawyers they could
25:57
around the United States and you know, some of the
26:00
big name lawyers, and try to bring them there to
26:02
work a deal. That's how you know you're asking your
26:05
question is asking for speculation, and I'm saying, based on
26:09
how would you influence the deal In American criminal justice system,
26:13
you got to try to get the best defense lawyers
26:15
you can, and you know, figure out which political party
26:19
was in power, and try to get people who are
26:21
well connected to the political party. Things like that. So
26:25
that's the way that I think somebody might have done
26:28
or have gone about trying to to pressure for a
26:31
favorable plea deal question, and that's what you just referred
26:34
to as speculation. Correct answer. Well, your question said, well,
26:38
how would you or they go about this? And I
26:41
gave you my answer as how do I think somebody
26:44
could well do that question? And your pleading doesn't allege
26:48
how someone would do it. It alleges that they did it.
26:51
Isn't that correct answer? Did what question? Let me rephrase it? Question?
26:57
I withdraw the question. Answer, yeah, question, we only have
27:01
about ten minutes here. There are a couple of things
27:03
that he gets cut off. Sure, absolutely, I wanted to
27:08
get before. We will come back to those when we resume.
27:11
We have a lot more questions. Answer great, I look
27:14
forward to it, mister Simpson. I'm going to ask the
27:17
reporter to mark as exhibit what are we up to? Six?
27:20
Exhibit six document bearing bait stamp number b E five
27:24
ten through five fourteen cassel ID. Exhibit number six series
27:30
of emails baits number B E five ten five fourteen
27:34
was marked for identification. Simpson. I will give that to
27:38
the witness and to identify the document further. It's a
27:41
series of emails, the latest one in date being at
27:45
the top, which appears to be an email from Paul
27:48
Cassel to Jacqueline Jesco on Sunday, January fourth, twenty fifteen.
27:55
My first question is whether you in fact sent this
27:57
email that this had this exchange of emails with miss Jesco. Answer. Yes,
28:04
question at miss Jesco. Who is Miss Jesco? Answer? She
28:08
works for Nightline? Question so she's with ABC News. Answer
28:13
I believe that's right. Yes, question and answer. I mean,
28:17
I can't remember. The network wasn't significant to me, but
28:21
she was with Nightline. I knew that was a major program.
28:24
I don't know. I can't recall sitting here today whether
28:27
Nightline is at an ABC program or NBC or some
28:30
other network. Question. If you look at the exhibit the
28:34
email in the second the bottom half of the first page,
28:37
it has her email address. Do you see at ABC
28:40
dot com? Answer? Yeah, that's good, thank you. Question so ABC.
28:45
So in this email on January fourth of twenty fourteen,
28:49
you told Miss Jesco of CBS News McAuley, ABC, I'm sorry,
28:54
you said CBS Simpson, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. Let me
28:59
start again. In this email on January fourth, twenty fifteen,
29:03
you told Miss Jesco of ABC News, quote, I represent
29:07
along with Brad Edwards in Florida, the young woman who
29:10
was sexually abused by Prince Andrew and Alan Dershowitz. Period
29:15
close quote. Have I quoted that correctly? Answer you have question,
29:19
So it's fair to say in this email you have
29:22
told ABC News Professor Dershowitz in fact had abused redacted.
29:26
Answer No, I think it says that I'm the lawyer
29:29
who is representing someone who has made those allegations. Question
29:34
that's how you read this email? Answer yes, question, In
29:37
the email you identified redacted as a young woman who
29:40
was sexually abused by Prince Andrew and Alan Dershowitz. That
29:44
doesn't read to you as a statement that she was abused.
29:47
Answer in context, I think it was understood that I
29:50
was representing her as an attorney with that claim. Dershowitz,
29:55
Move on, mister Simpson. I'm sorry what was that? Who
30:02
was that, mister Simpson? Who was speaking? The witness? I
30:06
heard somebody say move on or something? Could somebody identify
30:09
themselves please? And it was Dershowitz who said it, mister Simpson.
30:13
In any event, I will move on the witness. Well,
30:16
who I'm sorry? Who was that the speaker? I want
30:19
to know who was on the line here. Could somebody
30:21
identify themselves? Please? If somebody is evesdropping in my deposition,
30:26
I would like to know who it is, mister Simpson.
30:29
No one has the call in number other than the
30:30
Council and the parties, the witness, so Simpson, to my knowledge,
30:37
the witness. But who's the person SCROLLA. That doesn't preclude
30:41
someone from sharing the call in number. And if it's
30:44
appropriate that anybody's on the line, they better identify themselves.
30:48
And if people on the line refuse to identify themselves,
30:51
then it's our intention to cut off the line and
30:53
the people who were authorized to be on the line
30:55
can call back in. Mister Scott, I agree with that, Simpson.
30:59
Could the people on the line identify themselves? Scarola? Okay Dershowitz,
31:04
Alan Dershowitz, Scarola cut it off? McAuley. He he just Simpson,
31:12
Alan Dershowitz, anyone else? Scarola? So the only person on
31:16
the line is Alan Dershowitz. And it was mister Dershowitz
31:19
who made the comment. Move on? Is that correct, Simpson? Well,
31:24
he's the only one on the line. I've got only
31:27
three minutes left here, Scroola well, I'll give you three
31:29
more minutes. I want to know was it mister Dershowitz
31:32
who made the comment? Move on, because if it wasn't,
31:35
it wasn't. There's somebody else on the line that refuses
31:38
to identify themselves. Mister Weinberg, Marty Weinberg for Epstein. I've
31:43
been on the line on occasion. I have a mute
31:46
button and I've said nothing and just kept on going
31:48
with the statements on my end. Dershowitz, it was me
31:52
who said it. I thought my mute button was on.
31:54
The court reporter, I can't hear. I can't hear. Simpson,
31:58
I heard it, and I'll rep repeat it. Scrolla, it
32:01
was me who said it, scrolla mute button was on,
32:07
and that was mister Dershowitz making that comment. Simpson, Yes,
32:10
it was Scarrolla. Okay, thank you Dershowitz. I was trying
32:15
to instruct my attorney Scrolla. Then we are ready to
32:18
move on. Question. Have you told any all right, putting
32:22
aside counsel who are working with you, and putting aside
32:25
those who you identified as being within the common interest privilege,
32:29
so not those people. Have you told anyone that Professor
32:32
Dershowitz abused redacted or any other miner. Answer. No. What
32:38
I've tried to say is that I'm representing a young
32:40
woman who has made those allegations. As an attorney, I'm
32:43
proud to represent her, proud to present her case in court,
32:46
proud to present arguments to whoever will listen that she's
32:49
been sexually abused by various people. Question Okay, and you
32:54
have spoken with representatives of the news media on the
32:57
record and off the record about the case. Is that
33:00
not correct? Answer? Well, on the record, yes. With regard
33:04
to off the record, there have been some communications that
33:07
I think now have been turned over to the defense.
33:10
I'm not sure if there still remain any off the record.
33:13
I suppose probably there are a few, but I think
33:16
most of them what were originally off the record communication
33:19
have now been provided to the defense team. Question mister Cassell,
33:24
is it not true that you have spoken with reporters
33:27
on what you refer to as quote background close quote. Answer? Yeah,
33:32
I mean that's different than your earlier question was off
33:35
the record and on the record. There is an intermediate
33:38
category of background information as well, and I've spoken with
33:41
some reporters in that capacity. Question and the background means
33:46
that it's not for attribution. Correct answer, right, The background
33:50
means the reporter can use the information, but shouldn't attribute
33:54
it to a particular person. Answer. Let me just clarify
33:58
some time. Well, background, I think you know we are
34:01
now talking about sort of When I use the term background,
34:04
it would generally mean that this is something maybe that
34:07
you want to investigate and see if you can confirm
34:10
in other ways, but it shouldn't be sourced to that
34:13
I shouldn't be quoted directly because they are going to
34:15
have to find other other sources that confirm the same information.
34:20
Question Okay, and so my question is that it is
34:23
true that you have spoken with a number of reporters
34:26
on background about redacted's allegation in the case. Correct answer, Well,
34:32
a number of few, I would say is probably a
34:34
more accurate characterization question. And in any of those background conversations,
34:39
did you ever identify redacted as someone who had been
34:42
sexually abused by mister Dershowitz. Answer, I try to identify
34:46
myself as the attorney representing someone who said that she
34:50
had been sexually abused by Dershowitz. I think you've received
34:54
you know, we can go through we have produced I
34:57
think twenty five hundred pages of discovery, many of those
35:01
pages or media communications, and you know we can go
35:04
through and I think you know that there are a
35:06
number of examples, many examples where I have said I
35:10
represent a woman who has alleged that some verbal formulation
35:14
along those lines. I mean, attorneys represent victims all the time,
35:17
and I don't think people generally understand when an attorney
35:20
makes a statement that the attorney is adopting and vouching
35:24
for that statement. They're serving in a representative capacity. Question
35:29
Have you finished your answer? Answer? I have. All right, folks,
35:33
we're gonna wrap up right here, and in the next
35:35
episode dealing with the topic, we're gonna finish this bad
35:38
boy off. All of the information that goes with this
35:41
episode can be found in the description box.