Latest / The Vault: The Epstein Files / Mega Edition: Paul Cassell's Deposition In Cassell/Edwards V. Dershowitz (Part 1-3) (6/21/26)

Transcript

Mega Edition: Paul Cassell's Deposition In Cassell/Edwards V. Dershowitz (Part 1-3) (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. As we continue to dive into the unsealed files,
0:08
our journey brings us back to the Alan Dershowitz and
0:12
Paul Cassell lawsuit, and in our last dive into the files,
0:17
we took a look at the Virginia Roberts deposition in
0:20
the same case. Well, now Paul Cassel himself is in
0:23
the witness seat and he's giving his testimony. So we
0:29
have the lawyer, mister Simpson, asking the questions of Paul Cassel.
0:34
And again this is in the matter of the lawsuit
0:37
between Paul Cassel and Brad Edwards and Alan Dershowitz, So
0:44
they swear the witness in and then mister Simpson starts
0:48
asking questions. Question, good morning, mister Cassell. As of December thirtieth,
0:53
twenty fourteen, had you ever met redacted with redacted in person? Answer? Yes,
0:59
question how many times have you met with her in person?
1:02
Answer once? Question when was that? Answer approximately May twenty fourteen.
1:09
Question May of twenty fourteen. Answer yes, question who was
1:14
present for that meeting? Answer I'm just pausing for a
1:17
second because I don't think where gets cut off I'm
1:21
not then, Cassell again clearly not trying to get into
1:25
attorney client communication. Question. I'm not asking you for what
1:29
was said at this point. I'm asking you who was present.
1:33
I'm going to ask you where it was those kinds
1:35
of questions. Answer, sure, yeah. The main person who was
1:38
present was Brad Edwards, my co plaintiff in this case.
1:43
Question okay and redacted? Obviously it was present? Answer yes,
1:47
question anyone else present? Answer? You know, there were this
1:52
was at the Farmer Jaffie office here, and so persons
1:56
who were associated with the law firm or assisting. But
1:59
those were the main question. Okay, do you remember any
2:03
of those other people associated with the law firm who
2:06
were present? Answer present for you know, coming in and assisting.
2:10
I believe Brad's assistant redacted was there, and perhaps others
2:14
at the firm, But it was basically Brad and I
2:17
question was there anyone else who attended for the entire
2:21
meeting or a substantial portion of the meeting? Answer? No,
2:25
question Okay, how long did the meeting last? Answer? Approximately
2:29
all day? Question and when you say all day, what
2:33
time period are you referring to? Answer nine to five
2:36
question nine to five okay. And was that through lunch?
2:40
You just stayed through the eight hours? Is that what
2:42
your recollection of that was? Answer? Yeah, I remember we
2:46
were working very hard on it, so I think we had,
2:49
if I recall correctly, had lunch brought in and work
2:52
straight through that Question any other meetings in person with
2:56
redacted before December thirtieth, twenty fourteen? Oh? Question any telephone
3:02
calls with her that you had obviously before December thirtieth,
3:05
twenty fourteen. Answer, I believe there were a couple of
3:09
telephone calls. Question and can you tell us when those were? Answer?
3:14
Let's see roughly September twenty fourteen, give or take a month.
3:18
I mean, you know, sometime after May and before December thirtieth.
3:21
Question okay, And were those telephone calls between just you
3:25
and redacted? Or was anyone else on the line? Answer? No,
3:30
it was just the two, just the two of us
3:32
redacted and I question, okay, and you're able to distinguish
3:36
the calls in your mind as two separate telephone calls. Answer?
3:40
I think there were either one or two calls. I
3:43
think there may have been two, but it would not
3:45
have been more than two that I can recall question. Okay,
3:49
how long did each of those telephone calls last? Answer?
3:52
Less than five minutes? Question. I'm going to ask you
3:55
a question now, but before you answer it, pause because
3:58
I believe you will be in instructed not to answer it,
4:01
but I want to. I think will disagree on privilege.
4:04
We believe it's been waived. My question is during the meeting,
4:08
did you discuss Professor Dershowitz. Miss McCauley. I'm going to
4:11
object any discussion of what my client told you during
4:15
any situation where you were representing her as an attorney.
4:19
Mister Simpson, I think we had an agreement yesterday if
4:23
you follow your own council's instruction. I not answering. Are
4:26
you also going to follow miss McCauley's instructions? I not
4:29
answering on behalf of SCROLLA cuts them off. Mister Cassell
4:33
will follow the instructions of redacted's counsel. It's not his
4:37
privileged to waive, and he is ethically obliged to respect
4:40
the directions coming from redacted's counsel. Mister Simpson, Mister Scrola,
4:46
I'm simply making a record that the witness gets cut
4:50
off by SCROLLA. I understand that Simpson. Right, we disagree SCROLLA,
4:55
I understand, but you can assume the same way I
4:58
have authorized you to assume that Professor Cassell will follow
5:01
my instructions. Professor Cassell will also follow all instructions concerning
5:06
the assertion of attorney client privilege expressed on the record
5:10
by Miss McCauley on behalf of redacted. Mister Simpson, all right,
5:15
So mister Cassel, based on that, I'll assume that if
5:18
I ask you what you recall the discussion being at
5:21
the meeting or at each of the phone calls, that
5:23
you're not going to answer those questions. Is that correct?
5:27
Ms McCauley Yes, the witness, yeah, obviously not Simpson. Okay,
5:33
answer by Cassell. I mean I have a duty to
5:37
my client, which I'm going to respect. Question. All right,
5:40
So we'll take that up later with the judge. As
5:43
of December thirtieth, twenty fourteen, had you spoken about this
5:46
case with David Boyce? And the question is just had
5:50
you spoken? Gets cut off by McAuley objection, Not what
5:54
the discussion was. McCauley objection. It's the common interest privilege, Simpson.
6:00
I'm only asking if there was a discussion, no substance
6:03
at all, just was there a discussion, McCauley. I'm going
6:07
to instruct you not to answer that, mister Simpson. Okay,
6:12
you're taking the position that the fact of whether or
6:15
not gets cut off by McCauley. Yes, because you're also
6:18
trying to get into the timing of communications and all
6:21
of that goes into the advice that we're given her
6:24
and surrounding that advice. So I would object to that SCROLLA.
6:28
Could I have the question read back McCauley, and I
6:31
would like to clarify what case as well that you're
6:35
referring to, Simpson. All right, let me ask the question.
6:38
I will note for the record that yesterday the witness
6:40
testified that the fact that mister Boyce was representing or
6:43
redacted was significant to them. So it's sort of being
6:47
used as a sword and a shield here. But I
6:50
have only asked the question. I'll clarify, SCROLLA. We haven't
6:55
used it in any way yet, Simpson, though witness volunteered,
6:59
shall I put it that way? And we have a
7:01
waiver Simpson. But in any event, my question is have
7:05
you spoken before December thirtieth of twenty fourteen, Had you
7:10
spoken with David Boys about Redacted's allegations regarding Professor Dershowitz SCROLLA.
7:16
Without getting into the substance of any such discussion, you
7:19
can answer that question the witness. My recollection is no,
7:24
mister Scott, I think you're right on that one. Mister Simpson, okay,
7:28
So the answer is no, you had not spoken with them.
7:31
Answer my recollection. SCROLLA jumps in. Judge Scott has issued
7:35
or ruling. So I wrote several opinions on that actually SCROLLA,
7:39
we'll proceed the witness. Let me go back, mister Scott
7:43
in the context of criminal lawyers the witness. I'm trying
7:47
to remember if I wrote any opinions on that one
7:50
when I was a judge. I don't recall, but I
7:52
don't recall. My recollection is I had not personally spoken
7:56
to David Boys before December thirtieth, twenty fourteen, mister Simpson, okay.
8:01
Had you before December thirtieth, twenty fourteen spoken with any
8:06
lawyers at mister Boy's firm? Cassell? My recollection is no question.
8:12
And after December thirtieth of twenty fourteen, have you spoken
8:16
with mister Boys about Redacted's allegations against gets cut off
8:20
by McAuley again, I'm going to object Professor Dershowitz. McAuley, sorry,
8:25
I'll let you finish. I'm objecting to this. I think
8:28
it gets into the substance a conversation under the common
8:31
interest privilege, whether there was a conversation, but you're getting
8:35
into the substance of what the conversation was about, and
8:38
I think that's a violation of her privilege SCROLLA. And
8:42
just so that I can clarify our position on the record,
8:45
I think that we can identify the general subject matter
8:48
in order to support our position that it falls within
8:51
the common interest privilege. So we're willing to answer the
8:54
question about the general subject matter to support our assertion
8:58
our common interest privileg, but not get into the substance
9:02
of the communication beyond that, Mister Simpson and I believe
9:07
it's the same question that was answered moments ago for
9:09
a different time period. And again, I'm not asking for
9:13
any substance. I'm just asking whether since December thirtieth, twenty fourteen,
9:18
you've discussed the allegations by redacted against Professor Dershowitz cassel.
9:24
I would like to confer with my counsel on that question.
9:26
It gets into complicated legal issues, and I'm not sure Simpson.
9:30
You want to confer on the privilege issue. Is that right, Cassel?
9:35
I want to confer with my counsel before answering the question, Simpson.
9:39
I just want to clarify SCROLLA with respect to privilege. Simpson,
9:43
all right. As long as it's with respect to privilege,
9:46
you're entitled to do that. The witness, okay, So they
9:50
go off video record, then they come back SCROLLA. As
9:53
it turns out, while we may reach some issue of
9:56
privilege at some point in this discussion, the answer to
9:59
your pending question is no, so there is no privilege concern. Simpson.
10:04
All right, I'll ask the witness for the answer. I'll
10:07
move on to reask the question. Witness. Sure, that'll be good. Simpson.
10:12
My question is I believe that you have already answered
10:15
the question as to before December thirtieth, twenty fourteen, you
10:18
had discussed for a dacted's allegations against Professor Dershowitz, and
10:23
you said no, Is that right? Scrola? David Boys Simpson,
10:27
David Boys, I'm sorry, Cassell. Before December thirtieth, no discussions
10:33
that I can recall with David Boys. Simpson after December thirtieth,
10:37
twenty fourteen, did you have any discussion with David Boys
10:41
about Professor Dershowitz Scrola, you can answer yes or no
10:45
the witness. Yes, Simpson, you did answer yes. Question what
10:51
was the substance of those communications? McAuley, I'm going to
10:55
object to that. It's under common interest privilege, and it's
10:59
privileged to wave and she's not waving it. Simpson. Okay, Scrolla.
11:04
We assert the common interest privilege with regard to substance
11:07
as well, Simpson, and that will be that will be
11:11
asserted as to all questions about the substance of the
11:14
discussion with mister Boyce. Is that right? Scrola? I can't
11:18
say for sure, Simpson. All right, let me ask my
11:21
question then, Scrola. Maybe this will help you, maybe it won't.
11:26
But obviously there have been some public statements with regard
11:29
to this general area. If the communications were not considered
11:32
to be privileged at the time that they were made,
11:35
we can answer questions about that. If they were considered
11:38
to be privileged at the time they were made, we
11:41
can't answer questions. So I can't tell you that there's
11:44
a blanket assertion we need to hear the question, Cassell,
11:49
I need the question back, Simpson, all right, question, what
11:53
did you discuss with mister Boyce about the allegations against
11:57
Professor Dershowitz scrola. And that is common interest privileged information,
12:02
and we do assert a privilege. Simpson. Did you discuss
12:05
with mister Boyce any questions he had with Professor Dershowitz
12:11
McAuley objection scrolla, Sam objection, Sam instruction. Simpson, did you
12:15
discuss with mister Boyce any documents that mister boys had reviewed? Scrolla. Well,
12:22
let me again. I don't want to assert a privilege
12:24
to questions as to which the answer is no. So
12:27
you can answer generally as to whether the subject matter
12:30
was covered in any discussions that you had with mister
12:33
Boys the witness. Okay, Scrolla. If the answer is no,
12:39
as I sink down in this chair, if the answer
12:41
may be yes, you can respond Simpson, Well, that's a
12:45
new version. McCauley. I'm afraid I want to I'm sorry,
12:49
I want to confer on that because I have an
12:50
objection the witness. I have to say, I want to confer.
12:54
I'm confused too, So let's take a short break. Simpson again,
12:59
you're conferring on the privilege now, not the substance witness.
13:02
That's right, Scrolla. Can we go off the record? Simpson? Yeah,
13:07
all right, folks, we're going to wrap up right here,
13:09
and in the next episode we're going to pick up
13:11
where we left off. All of the information that goes
13:14
with this episode can be found in the description box.
13:17
What's up, everyone, and welcome to another episode of the
13:20
Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're going to get right
13:24
back to that Paul Cassell deposition that he gave in
13:27
the lawsuit against Alan Dershowitz. All right, so they get
13:31
back from the break and once again mister Simpson is
13:35
asking the questions and Paul Kassel is doing the answering SCROLLA.
13:40
Because of the concerns about an inadvertent potential waiver of
13:44
the work product privilege. While it's not our intent to
13:47
assert a privilege with regard to non existent communication, any
13:51
effort to identify the subject matter of communication in the
13:55
questions that you asked will require that we assert work
13:58
product privilege with regard to those questions. Mister Simpson, Okay,
14:03
we disagree obviously on that position. SCROLLA. We understand, Simpson.
14:07
So I will ask some additional questions and we'll see
14:10
if the witness answers them. Scrolla. If it begins, did
14:14
you talk about the answer is going to be an
14:16
assertion of privilege? Simpson? Okay, scrolla, Okay, Simpson. I'll ask
14:22
the questions. Question. Did you discuss with mister boys any
14:26
meetings mister Boy's had with Professor Dershowitz McAuley objection, scrolla objection,
14:33
sam instruction Simpson. Did you discuss with mister Boys's views
14:37
onto the credibility of redacted? Scrolla objection, McCauley objection, Simpson.
14:44
Did you discuss with mister boys any allegations about sexual
14:48
misconduct by Les Wexner? Scrolla same objection, McCauley objection, scrolla objection, Simpson.
14:57
That's the same question you allowed to be answered. Did
14:59
you let me ask it a different way? Question? Did
15:02
you discuss in any way Les Wexner with mister Boyce?
15:06
The objections come hot and heavy once again, Simpson, Okay.
15:11
Question did you discuss former Prime Minister Barack with mister Boyce?
15:15
Same objection Simpson. Yesterday you mentioned that one of the
15:19
reasons that supported your conclusion is that you had an
15:23
adequate basis to allege in the joint your motion that
15:26
the allegations against Professor Dershowitz was that mister Boyce was
15:30
representing redacted and yes, redacted. Do you recall that testimony? Answer? Yes,
15:35
question And you said that because of how highly regarded
15:39
mister Boyce was. I think you mentioned the Bush versus
15:42
Gore case. Is that right answer? Yes, question. I used
15:45
to work for his opponent in Bush versus the Gore case.
15:48
They're both very good answer. I was trying to remember.
15:51
I'm sorry, take time, But who was the other lawyer? Question?
15:55
Ted Olsen answered, Ted, that's right question, but that's a side.
16:00
My question is, given your high regard for mister Boyce,
16:03
would his views as to the credibility of redacted be
16:06
something that would be important to you in evaluating a case.
16:10
McCauley objection, Simpson, are you instructing him not to answer? McCauley,
16:15
I mean, is it hypothetical? Simpson? No, I'm just asking
16:19
whether his views those views. I'm not asking what those
16:22
views are. I'm simply asking whether those views would be
16:25
important to them. Scrolla. You may answer that question the witness, Yes, Simpson.
16:33
I may have asked this already, But did you discuss
16:36
with mister boys his views as to the credibility of
16:39
redacted McAuley objection question Prior to December thirtieth of twenty fourteen,
16:46
had you discussed redacted's allegations of sexual misconduct against Professor
16:51
Dershowitz with Bob Joseph Berg Answer me personally? Answer yes,
16:56
you personally answer no question After December thirtieth of twenty fourteen,
17:03
did you discuss with mister Joseph Berg redacted's allegations against
17:07
Professor Dershowitz? Answer not personally, No question. You say not personally.
17:12
Are you aware of someone else who had discussions of
17:16
with mister had any discussions on that topic with mister
17:21
Joseph Burg? SCROLLA. To the extent that the question would
17:24
call for any information that was communicated to you in
17:27
the context of the common interest privilege, you should not answer,
17:31
Cassell All right, I'm going to SCROLLA. You can answer
17:35
if any such communication came to you outside the context
17:38
of the common interest privilege, but you may not include
17:41
in your response any information derived from common interest privilege.
17:46
Mister Simpson, and my question right now is not the substance.
17:50
We'll get to that. But to your knowledge, let me
17:53
rephrase that, did someone tell you that they had discussed
17:56
with mister Joseph's Burg the allegations made by redacted against
18:01
Professor Dershowitz Scrola, You may only answer that question to
18:05
the extent that you had any communication regarding that subject
18:08
matter with someone outside the common interest privilege or the
18:12
attorney client privilege for that matter. Simpson, I'm not asking
18:17
for substance, just the name if you did. Scrola, well,
18:21
I understand that. But following along the same lines as before,
18:25
you're asking us to identify the subject matter of a
18:28
communication that's privileged. We won't answer questions or regarding the subject
18:32
matter of privileged communication. But a Professor Cassell had a
18:36
conversation with Sam Smith standing on the street corner about
18:40
Bob Joseph Berg, he can answer that question. Question did
18:44
you have a conversation with anyone? Just narrow question, did
18:47
you have a conversation with anyone who told you that
18:51
they that person had discussed the subject matter of redacted's
18:54
allegations against Professor Dershowitz with mister Joseph Burg. Just did
18:59
you discuss that with anyone? Scrolla same objection same instruction, Simpson. Okay, Scrolla.
19:07
If you want to rephrase the question to ask him
19:09
whether he had such a conversation with anyone outside the
19:12
attorney client privilege, that's a question that we're obligated to answer.
19:17
The question, as you phrased, it is a question that
19:20
we are precluded from answering. Mister Simpson, that's a very
19:24
strange notion of the privilege, Simpson question. But let me
19:28
ask it this way. Did you discuss with anyone who
19:31
was not an attorney? Let me rephrase it a different way.
19:34
You testified yesterday about your understanding of the scope of
19:37
the alleged common interest privilege, correct answer, yes, question putting
19:42
aside the people within the scope of that privilege that
19:45
you identified your definition, did you discuss the topic did
19:49
anyone tell you they had discussed the topic of redacted's
19:52
allegation against Professor Dershowitz with mister Joseph Burg Scrola, you
19:58
may not answer that question, and to the extent the
20:00
question still encompasses attorney client privileged communication. If you want
20:04
to rephrase the question to exclude both common interest privilege
20:08
communication and attorney client privilege, that's a question we're prepared
20:12
to answer. Otherwise, we are prohibited from answering the question
20:16
as phrased as a consequence of it encompassing privileged communication. Simpson,
20:21
as he defined the common interest privilege group, it included
20:24
attorney client. But I think at this point the explanation
20:27
you're providing aren't really helpful, so please just instruct them
20:31
to answer or not answer, and we'll let the judge decide. SCROLLA. Well,
20:36
the instruction. I only gave the explanation and the hope
20:38
that it might facilitate the examination and allow you to
20:41
move to areas where you can get substantative information. I
20:45
apologize if you consider it a waste of time, So
20:48
I'll simply instruct Professor Gassel not to answer the question
20:51
as phrased. If you want an explanation as to the
20:54
basis of my instruction, I'm prepared to give that to you.
20:58
Mister Simpson, Thank you, thank you. That's a helpful way
21:01
to proceed. SCROLLA okay, Simpson. Question, Well, let's start this way.
21:07
Have you discussed with any attorneys within that you described
21:10
as common interest attorney client group whether that person had
21:14
discussed with mister Joseph Berg redacted's allegation against Professor Dershowitz
21:19
scrolla Sam objection, Sam instruction. Question, have you discussed with
21:24
anyone who is not an attorney for redacted? Whether strike that?
21:28
Has anyone who is not an attorney for redacted told
21:31
you that they had discussed it with Joseph Berg, the
21:34
allegation against by redacted against Professor Dershowitz scrolla Sam objection, Simpson,
21:41
have you personally spoken with anyone else at mister Joseph
21:44
Berg's firm other than him about redacted allegation against professor Dershowitz. Answer?
21:51
Not to my knowledge. McAuley objects here, I'm sorry, can
21:54
you read that back scrola, was a communication with anyone
21:57
else in Bob Joseph berg firm? Personal communication between Professor
22:03
Cassell and any firm member of Bob Joseph Berg. McCauley, okay,
22:08
question and the answer was not that you recall. Answer
22:12
not to my knowledge, I don't know all the members
22:14
of his firm, but I certainly have no recollection of
22:17
talking to you know anyone who was in his firm? Question? Okay, answer.
22:23
I think the record should be clear. I'm an attorney
22:25
and a law professor in Salt Lake City, Utah. And
22:28
my understanding is he's an attorney here in Florida, So
22:32
I don't ordinarily interact with, you know, attorneys in Florida
22:36
other than the ones I'm interacting with on this case SCROLLA,
22:40
which is now occurring on a very regular basis. Simpson question,
22:46
mister Cassell. Scott pipes up. No teaming, mister Scola, please, Simpson,
22:53
didn't you just testify yesterday that the fact that mister
22:55
Joseph Burg Firm had filed to complain against redacted who
22:59
is also your claim to be significant to your evaluation
23:02
of the case? Answer? Yes, question if that was significant
23:07
to evaluation of the case, Why are you telling us
23:09
you don't normally talk with attorneys in Florida. Doesn't he
23:14
represent at one point represent the same client? Answer? Right, question,
23:19
and so wouldn't it be natural for you to be
23:22
speaking with at least within the realm of something one
23:25
might expect for you to speak Answer. If I were
23:29
a solo representative of redacted, that would be the case.
23:32
But I think you're obviously aware that I have co
23:35
counsel on the case, and there are other attorneys who
23:37
are also participating in the matter. So I think it
23:41
would be obvious that if there's a division of labor,
23:44
it might not be along the lines that you're suggesting.
23:47
And I can't go any further without going into work
23:50
product and other issues surrounding redacted's representation. Question, Has mister
23:56
Boyce ever told you that he believes redacted was mistaken
23:59
in ouraction accusations against Professor Dershowitz scrola, Sam objection, SAM
24:04
instruction the witness, I'd like to confer my council on
24:09
an attorney client privilege issue in connection with that question,
24:13
mister Simpson, I'll rephrase the question, have you ever discussed
24:17
with mister Boyse his views as to whether or not
24:20
redacted is mistaken in her allegations against mister Dershowitz McCauley
24:26
objection scrolla SAM objection SAM instruction. Question prior to December
24:31
thirtieth of twenty fourteen, had you personally reviewed any of
24:35
the flight logs that had been referred to in the
24:38
testimony in the case? Answer? All right, question My question
24:43
is whether you personally reviewed them? Answer yes, question what
24:47
flight logs have you reviewed? How would you describe them?
24:51
Answer both Exhibit one and Exhibit two that were shown
24:54
to mister Dershowitz yesterday. Question I believe those were exhibits
24:58
six and seven. Answer okay, question, but can we agree
25:02
that flight logs were marked as exhibits? Answer? Right, the
25:06
two composite exhibits of flight logs I had examined previously.
25:10
Question okay, so the same documents that Professor Dershowitz was
25:13
shown at his deposition. Is that right? Answer? That's my recollection. Yes.
25:19
Question okay, So when did you review those? Answer? So
25:23
one of the reviews was in May of twenty fourteen.
25:26
There may have also been an earlier review at an
25:29
earlier time, but I definitely remember reviewing them in May,
25:33
approximately May twenty fourteen. Question isn't it true that those
25:38
flight logs support Professor dershowitz testimony that he was never
25:41
on a plane with redacted? Answer? No, question, how do
25:47
they not? What is the explanation for your conclusion in
25:50
that regard? Answer? Right? We talked about this yesterday. So
25:54
while in corporate to speed things up some of the
25:57
testimony that I gave yesterday, what the flight logs showed
26:00
was to my mind, evidence of potential doctoring, evidence of
26:03
selective presentation of evidence. Mister Dershowitz had presented to a
26:08
law enforcement agency at their request. Apparently what I understood
26:13
to be that he had been requested by law enforcement
26:16
agency to provide flight logs relevant to this investigation, and
26:20
rather than providing all the flight logs that were available
26:23
at the time, he appears to have provided flight logs
26:26
that went from January two thousand and five through September
26:29
two thousand and five. Knowing that he appeared on in October.
26:33
I may be off by a monthier, but on an
26:35
October two thousand and five flight log, So that to
26:38
my mind, had indicated that Professor Dershowitz was providing selective
26:43
information to law enforcement. Those concerns this is, you know,
26:47
there's more to it. The other problem was that the
26:50
flight logs that mister Dershowitz had produced were inconsistent with
26:54
the flight logs that Dave Rogers, one of Epstein's pilots,
26:57
had So now there were in consistencies on these flight logs,
27:01
and it seemed to be seemed to me to be
27:04
surprising that during the period of time where redacted was involved,
27:08
mister Dershowitz was not appearing on those flight logs. Now,
27:12
it's possible I suppose, and that seems to be mister
27:15
Dershowitz's position that the reason that he's not on those
27:18
flight logs is that he was not on those flights.
27:22
But given all the information, I won't take your time
27:25
this morning to go through it, all the information I
27:27
had about the International sex Trafficking Organization, it seemed to
27:31
me that it was also possible that the sex trafficking organization,
27:35
which was represented by you know, vast resources and the
27:39
ability to produce witnesses and documents and other information, would
27:43
cover up the existence of this organization, had gone through
27:47
the flight logs and made necessary alterations to conceal the
27:51
scope of the operation. In addition to that, when I
27:54
started to compare the Dave Rogers' flight logs with Dershowitz,
27:58
which we call them Dershwitz flight logs, which were the
28:01
logs that he had produced, there were inconsistencies. And so
28:06
it struck me as odd that there were these inconsistent
28:09
flight logs. The other thing that I noticed is I
28:12
don't believe that Dave Rogers has the exclusive pilot for
28:15
mister Epstein, and so I had concerns. Excuse me, I'm sorry,
28:19
I had concerns that the flight logs that covered the
28:23
jet were not just David's flight logs, but there should
28:26
be flight logs for other pilots which were not apparently
28:29
being produced. And so in light of all of that,
28:32
what I was seeing a production of flight logs that
28:34
was incomplete. And then I started to hear from Dershowitz that, well,
28:38
these records proved conclusively I couldn't have done that. And
28:42
I knew to an absolute certainty that the records were
28:45
inconsistent and inaccurate. And for somebody who would apparently carefully
28:50
produce these records and to represent that these conclusively prove
28:54
that he wasn't on the flights seemed to be in
28:57
an accurate bit of information. Those were the kinds of
29:00
things I was thinking about. Question, mister Kassell, is it
29:04
your testimony? Well, first of all, I moved to strike
29:07
the non responsive portion of the answer. Question mister Cassell,
29:12
is it your testimony that you have sufficient information to
29:15
conclude an allege that Professor Dershowitz falsified documents and gave
29:21
falsified documents to a prosecuting authority. Answer, It's my belief
29:26
that Professor Dershowitz provided incomplete production to law enforcement. Question,
29:32
is it your testimony under oath that you have sufficient
29:34
information to allege that Professor Dershowitz intentionally provided false information
29:40
to a prosecuting authority. Answer? It's my position that he
29:44
provided incomplete information to a prosecuting authority and an accurate
29:48
information to a prosecuting authority. Now as to precisely what
29:52
his state of mind was when he was producing the
29:55
incomplete and inaccurate information, that remains to be this. You know,
29:59
that was one of the topics that I was hoping
30:01
could have been covered in the depositions here in the
30:04
last two days, but unfortunately there wasn't sufficient time. All Right,
30:09
we're gonna wrap up right here, and in the next episode,
30:12
we're gonna pick up where we left off. All of
30:14
the information that goes with this episode can be found
30:18
in the description box. What's up, everyone, and welcome to
30:21
another episode of the Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're
30:25
gonna pick up where we left off with the Paul
30:28
Cassell deposition in the lawsuit against Alan Dershowitz. Question, let
30:35
me ask it a different way. You gave a long
30:37
answer in which you describe reasons you apparently believe that
30:40
these flight logs were not merely incomplete, but that someone
30:43
had falsified them. Did I understand that correctly? Scrolla? Excuse me?
30:48
The question was asked was limited to the time period
30:51
prior to December thirtieth. The answer that was given was
30:55
limited to the time period prior to December thirtieth. Are
30:58
you now asking for an ex of that response to
31:01
include information that's been gathered since December thirtieth? Mister Simpson,
31:06
I will take your objection to form. Can we have
31:08
the question back? Thereupon, a portion of the record was
31:12
read by the reporter Scrolla and I object the question
31:17
is vague and ambiguous because it fails to identify the
31:20
time period about which you are inquiring, mister Simpson. Question,
31:25
mister Cassel, as you sit here today, are you prepared,
31:28
based on the information you have available to you, to
31:31
assert that Professor Dershowitz intentionally provided misleading or doctor documents
31:37
to a prosecuting authority. Answer? So, based on all the
31:40
information I have today? Question yes? Answer yes. Question what
31:46
do you base what is your basis for that conclusion
31:49
and include information up until today? Answer? All right, So
31:54
obviously that's an open ended question. Question just answer the
31:58
question please as best you can. Sure. All right, Well,
32:02
let me say that's a lot. There's a lot of
32:04
things to get into on that. So let's start with
32:06
the events of the last two days, the deposition of
32:09
mister Dershowitz, which in my mind demonstrates repeated false statements
32:13
that were made by mister Dershowitz. Let's begin with the
32:17
overarching point about the deposition of the last two days.
32:21
I've been practicing law law since about nineteen eighty six,
32:25
and in my experience, I have never seen a more
32:27
evasive effort to avoid answering questions and to essentially run
32:31
out the clock so that detailed questions cannot be asked
32:34
by my attorney. And I witnessed over the last two days,
32:37
mister Dershowitz was asked a series of very simple questions
32:41
where were you on this day? Or what's the name?
32:44
Or what time? Things like that, and instead of you know,
32:47
giving an immediate answer, he ended up giving a very
32:50
extended answer, commonly punctuated with disparaging remarks that seem to
32:55
have nothing to do with answering the questions. So I
32:58
drew the inference from that that mister Dershowitz did not
33:01
want to answer questions over the last two days. Another
33:05
thing that happened during the deposition, and I will not
33:07
repeat what was said in the deposition because there was
33:10
immediately an objection from miss McCauley. But there were two
33:14
points in the deposition where mister Dershowitz made representations about
33:18
what a New York attorney David Boyce would say. And
33:21
I'm not going to get into he gets cut off.
33:24
I just want you to say, if he starts talking
33:26
about McCauley cuts him off, I object any reference. She
33:30
gets cut off now by Simpson, then I get to
33:33
ask all the questions. If he should say anything McCauley,
33:37
I think he's just acknowledging that I'm sorry. I think
33:40
he's acknowledging that that occurred. I object to any discussion
33:43
of a settlement communication in the context of that privilege SCROLLA.
33:49
I don't intend to get into any settlement discussion. We're
33:52
not going to repeat the substance of the objected to testimony, Simpson.
33:58
My point I just want to be nice, is if
34:01
this witness starts saying anything about his communication or why
34:04
he is coming to a conclusion, he's putting that forth
34:08
as a basis he has opened the door. You can't
34:10
put it forth and park and not let me ask
34:13
for all the discussions scrolla you can proceed and you
34:18
know not to include privilege the witness, Yes, witness. There
34:22
was a newspaper that reported a Florida business newspaper that
34:26
promptly after mister Dershowitz said that mister boys had made
34:29
certain representations of Florida respected, Florida Business newspaper immediately reported
34:35
that David Boyce had said that was a false statement.
34:39
And in light of that, I now had David Boyse
34:41
saying that mister Dershowitz was making false statements under oath
34:45
during the deposition that occurred over the last two days.
34:49
In addition to that, I had again during the deposition,
34:53
I heard mister Dershowitz say that Attorney Bob Joseph Berg
34:57
had said the words to the effect that he, Joseph Burger,
35:00
did not believe redacted. I knew Joseph Berg was an
35:03
attorney who had represented redacted based on public information, and
35:08
I knew that it would be a gross violation of
35:10
mister joseph Berg's attorney client obligation. And as a result
35:14
of that, it seemed to me that once again mister
35:18
Dershowitz was giving false information under oath in an effort
35:21
to exonerate himself from the sex trafficking that he had
35:24
been involved with. In addition to that, I learned during
35:27
the deposition on Thursday that it had quote not crossed
35:31
my mind close quote I believe that's a direct quote
35:34
from mister Dershowitz to record a conversation with a woman
35:37
allegedly named Rebecca who allegedly had made certain statements. That
35:42
was on Thursday, and then yesterday Friday, I learned that
35:46
mister Dershowitz not only had crossed his mind to make
35:49
a recording, he had in fact made such a recording,
35:52
and in fact had transcribed and in fact turned it
35:55
over to his attorneys. So once again I had what
35:59
appeared to be a false statement under oath by mister
36:02
Dershowitz in an attempt to exonerate himself from the sex
36:05
trafficking that we had evidence he has been involved with.
36:09
The false statements, or certainly misleading statements continue. I suppose
36:13
some of these could be a matter of judgment. They
36:16
raise grave concern to me. One of them that we
36:19
had propounded an interrogatory request the basis for mister Dershowitz
36:23
statements that redacted had a criminal record, and he said that, well,
36:28
she admitted that she had sex with various people, so
36:30
that renders her a criminal and something along those lines,
36:34
which I didn't think was very accurate, but in any event,
36:38
that was the answer he gave. And then I learned
36:41
during the deposition in the last two days that mister
36:43
Dershowitz had to receive information that he says shows that
36:47
redacted had stolen money from a restaurant and had been
36:50
criminally charged with that that was not produced to us
36:54
during discovery, even though it would have been obviously relevant
36:57
and it was directly called for in the discovery that
37:00
we've provided with You know, I also have I would
37:03
like to refresh my recollection if Council Scrolla, you can
37:07
refresh your recollection on anything you need to the witness,
37:10
all right, I'd like to refresh my recollection by looking
37:14
at Simpson. Actually I object to this answer as non responsive.
37:19
I haven't heard anything about flight logs. Once Scrolla you
37:23
can continue the witness. You know, these all go to
37:26
statements Simpson. You looking at a document answer. Yeah, let's
37:30
mark it as exhibit if you'd like. This is a
37:33
memory aid to me. Question did you prepare it? Answer? Yes, yes,
37:37
I did. All right, Let's see at page one fourteen
37:40
of a rough transcript that I saw prepared of Thursday's testimony,
37:45
mister Dershowitz was asked, quote, you know that redacted is
37:48
not the only person who has sworn under oath that
37:51
you were present at Jeffrey Epstein's Palm Beach home with
37:54
young girls. Right. Answer No. That seemed to me to
37:58
be false or at the very least misleading testimony, given
38:01
that mister Dershowitz knew that jan A Lessi, among potentially
38:05
other people, had identified them as having been in the
38:09
presence of Jeffrey Epstein and young girls at the Florida mansion,
38:13
and indeed had identified a photograph of redacted. At page
38:18
one sixty four of the transcript, mister Dershowitz was asked, quote,
38:21
all of the manifests that have been produced in this litigation,
38:25
the ones that you say corroborate your testimony and exonerate
38:28
you demonstrate that you never flew on Jeffrey Epstein's plane
38:32
in the company of your wife. Correct. Answer, no, that's
38:36
not true. I don't know that. And again, in the
38:39
context of this litigation where the flight logs have been
38:43
as this question that I'm answering tends to show are
38:46
so central. For mister Dershowitz to testify under oath that
38:49
he didn't know whether his wife was depicted on the
38:52
flight log struck me at the very least as misleading information,
38:57
but I concluded, in my opinion, was actually deliberately false information,
39:01
particularly given this litigation where he has produced not only
39:06
his own personal travel record, but all of his wife's
39:09
travel records for the relevant period of time. So I
39:12
thought was again a deliberate false statement under oath designed
39:17
to exonerate him from his criminal involvement in this international
39:21
sex trafficking ring. At another point in the transcript, he
39:24
was asked quote, no, I'm sorry, he stated, quote I
39:28
challenge you to find any statement where I said I
39:30
have never traveled outside the presence of my wife close quote,
39:35
representing that there would be no such statement there, when
39:38
in fact, I'm aware of the American lawyer quotation attributed
39:42
to him from January fifteenth, twenty fifteen, I've been married
39:46
to the same woman for twenty eight years. She goes
39:49
everywhere with me close. Quote and again you know this.
39:53
I understand sometimes people may go away from their wife.
39:57
But the American lawyer was obviously on January fifteenth, twenty fifteen,
40:02
asking about, well, have you been outside the presence of
40:05
your wife in situations where you might have interactions with redacted?
40:10
And that was the answer that he gave to the
40:12
American lawyer, And based on my review of the flight logs,
40:16
I thought that was again a deliberate effort to obscure
40:19
and try and exonerate himself from his involvement in this
40:22
international sex trafficking ring. He also said yesterday nobody knows
40:28
about Prince Andrew and redacted except for the two of them,
40:31
And again I thought that was at a minimum deliberately
40:34
misleading information and more likely deliberately false information, because mister
40:39
Dershowitz was aware of the photograph and had long been
40:43
aware of the photograph that shows Prince Andrew with his
40:45
arm around redacted, standing next to a beaming Clay Maxwell,
40:50
who has been involved in this international sex trafficking organization,
40:55
and in circumstances of that photograph, it seems quite likely
40:58
that the photographer who took the pick sure was the
41:01
head of the international sex trafficking ring, Jeffrey Epstein. And
41:05
so for him to say that only two people knew
41:07
what went on again deliberately false information, because I know
41:11
he is an attorney for Jeffrey Epstein, and he could
41:14
have asserted attorney client privilege over that said, I can't
41:17
get into my communication with my client about what he
41:20
was doing with Prince Andrew. But instead he said, no
41:23
one knows what happened other than those two people, in
41:27
circumstances where it was quite clear that there would have
41:30
been others who would have been made aware of that.
41:33
Now the question is, why do I think you know
41:37
there are inaccuracies in the flight log? And I could
41:40
refresh my recollection here by looking at I think it's
41:43
docket entry two ninety one of our pleading that we've
41:46
presented on January twenty first to Judge Mara, where we
41:50
provided specific itemized examples of inconsistencies between the David Rodgers
41:54
flight log and again i'll call it the Alan Dershowitz
41:58
flight log, which was a slow presentation of flight log information.
42:03
And when you see those inconsistencies, it becomes very hard
42:05
to believe that all the information that was provided in
42:09
those flight logs was accurate. So when I take all
42:12
that information put it together, I believe that they're sufficient.
42:15
I have sufficient basis for believing at this point in
42:18
time that mister Dershowitz has indeed provided inaccurate information to
42:23
law enforcement agencies, or at a minimum, has provided produced
42:27
in accurate information through circumstances beyond his control. But when
42:32
he continually represents that the information is accurate and exonerates them,
42:37
I believe that is deliberately a false statement. Mister Simpson
42:41
moved to strike the answer the non responsive portion to
42:44
the answer SCROLLA. Which portion is at, mister Simpson, ninety
42:49
nine percent of it? I think at the end we
42:53
got the flight logs. I moved to strike the non
42:55
responsive portion. All right, folks, we're going to wrap up
42:58
this episode right here, and in the next episode dealing
43:01
with the topic, we're gonna pick up where we left off.
43:04
All of the information that goes with this episode can
43:06
be found in the description box.