Speaker 1: What's up, everyone, and welcome to another episode of the
Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're going to pick up
where we left off with the Paul Cassell deposition in
the lawsuit against Alan Dershowitz. Question, I want to go back,
mister Cassell, get back to yesterday's exhibits. I'm going to
hand you what was mark yesterday as Cassel exhibit number two,
which is a joint oer motion. And when you have
that in front of you? Do you have that in
front of you? Answer? I do? Question all right? Would
you find my copy if you would turn to page
bottom of page three, top of page four, Do you
have that? Answer? Got it? Question? All right? I'm going
to read it. Tell me if I've read it correctly?
Answer okay. Question Epstein also sexually trafficked the then minor
Jane Doe and that's redacted correct answer yes, question making
her available for sex to politically connected and financially powerful people.
Epstein's purposes lending Jane Doe, along with other young girls
to such powerful people were to ingratiate himself with them
for business, personal, political and financial gain, as well as
to obtain potential blackmail information. Did I read that correctly.
Answer you did. Answer, what did you mean by obtained
potential blackmail information? Answer? Okay, let me double check. Once
the criminal organization had put the bait out, so to speak,
to various people, and they took the bait. These are
young girls who were being sexually abused. Once the criminal
organization had gotten people to sexually abuse these young girls,
at that point they had information that they could use
to blackmail those people and then get favors in exchange.
And that's Epstein at the head of the organization, would
be the one who would benefit most directly from the
blackmail information. Question and by blackmail information, do you mean
that mister Epstein then had information that he could threaten
to disclose if the other person didn't do what Epstein
asked them to do. Answer precisely. Question as of December thirtieth,
twenty fourteen, if redacted had access to publicity, she had
exactly the same ability to blackmail people. Isn't that true? Answer?
Absolutely not. A billionaire has far more resources than a
victim of child sex abuse, particularly one that's been forced
into hiding in Australia to escape the criminal organization. So
for you to suggest that redacted had the same ability
to blackmail somebody as Jeffrey Epstein, Is I think preposterous question?
As of redacted had the same ability as Jeffrey Epstein
to reveal publicly the names of the people who she
says sexually abused her, as did mister Epstein. Is that true? Answer?
You're talking about physical ability to speak words? They both
have the same physical ability to speak the English language. Yes, question,
And in fact, before at least three years before or
December thirtieth, twenty fourteen, she had the ability to be
quoted in an article, more than one article in the
Daily Mail in London about her experiences. Correct answer, that's
correct question? And am I correct that of December thirtieth,
twenty fourteen, you didn't know whether she was paid for
that interview or not. Answer? I wasn't sure. That's right question.
And after December thirtieth, twenty fourteen, the references to Prince
Andrew and Professor Dershowitz generated international publicity. Isn't that true? Answer? Okay? Yes,
I mean in a general sense, I could ask which allegations,
but these allegations did generate publicity? Certainly question? Yes, the
allegations in your jointerer motion that Prince Andrew and Professor
Dershowitz had abused or redacted then known as Jane do
number three generated a buyerstorm of publicity? Did it not answer?
It generated a lot of publicity. Yes, question, and within
that you were participating in an attempt to arrange an
interview with ABC News. Isn't that true? Answer? That was
within days. The chronology is important here. The allegations were
filed in the pleating on December thirtieth. Several days after that,
mister Dershowitz then took to the airwaves to denounce not
only Brad and me, but particularly of concern to me,
was redacted, this victim of sex trafficking. And at that point,
as one of her attorneys, I was looking for a
way to respond to that media assault on her by
mister Dershowitz. Mister Simpson moved to strike as non responsive question.
Within twenty four hours of this pleading being filed, there
was publicity about the allegations against Prince Andrew and mister Dershowitz.
Professor Dershowitz, isn't that correct? Answer? I don't know the
exact timeframe, but you know roughly that time sounds right
about right question. If Professor Dershowitz had never said anything,
wouldn't you expect that these allegations as to Prince Andrew
in particular and Professor Dershowitz would get substantial publicity. Answer
there was, he gets cut off by Scrolla. Excuse me
to the extent that the question calls for speculation. I object,
mister Simpson. No, I'm asking for a state of mind
when he filed the document the witness, there's no doubt
that he gets cut off by Scrolla. So the question
is at the time of the filing. Mister Simpson, please
do not coach the witness Scrolla. No, I'm not coaching them.
I just want to understand the question. You're asking what
his state of mind was at the time of the
filing Simpson? Did he anticipate Scrolla? Because the other question
was what's your position today? Simpson? Mister Scrolla, really, Scarrolla,
that's a different question. So I just want to know
which one you're asking. Do you want to know is
state of mind men or his state of mind today? Simpson.
I'll take that as an objection to the form of
the question. Scrolla. Once again, it's a request for a
clarification of an ambiguous question, Simpson, it's coaching the witness
question as of he gets cut off by Cassel. Yeah,
I don't need any coaching question. Let me ask the
question as of December thirtieth, that's true as of we
agree that's coaching. Answer, But that wasn't coaching. That wasn't coaching.
So the suggestion that it's coaching it is not fair question. Okay,
we disagree. As of December thirtieth, twenty fourteen, did you
anticipate that naming Prince Andrew in a public filing as
having abused or redacted would generate substantial publicity? Answer? Substantial
is a debatable word, but certainly it's going to generate publicity, Yes,
publicity about the allegations. Question, and the allegations are that
Prince Andrew had sexually abused redacted? Correct answer, that was
one of the allegations in here. Sure. Question, and the
allegation that Professor Dershowitz had sexually abused redacted? Correct answer,
that's right. What we were, what we were starting to
document and allege here was the terrible things that Epstein's
criminal organization had done. Question. Let me refer you to
page six of your filing. It's the first full paragraph.
Answer yep question, I'm going to read it. Epstein also
trafficked Jane Don number three for sexual purposes to many
other powerful men answer okay question, including numerous prominent American politicians,
powerful business executives, foreign presidents, a well known prime minister,
and other world leaders. Jane Epstein required Jane Don number
three to describe the events that she had with these
men so that he could potentially black mel Did I
read that correctly? Answer you did? Question with respect to blackmail,
the ability to blackmail? Is that the same potential we
talked about a moment ago in your testimony. Answer sure, question,
And what you're referring to there is he gets cut
off by Cassel roughly Yeah. I mean, if there's something
that you want clarified, go ahead and clarify it. Question.
I just wanted to make sure I understand correctly that
when you refer to Epstein requiring redacted to describe these
events so that he could potentially blackmail them, what you
had in mind was Epstein wanted to know what redacted
did with these men so that he had the ability
to threaten to disclose it if they didn't do what
he wanted them to do. Answer that was part of it. Yes,
question and isn't it true you could have accomplished in
terms of furthering redacted's legal interests, You could have accomplished
exactly the same thing by saying Epstein also trafficked Jane
do number three three for sexual purposes to other well
known men period. Answer No, I don't think so. Question Okay,
you felt it furthered her legal interest to specify American politicians,
powerful business executives, foreign presidents, a well known prime minister,
and world leaders. That was you believe that further her
legal interest? Answer? Yeah. Question did you also anticipate that
would titillate the press, so to speak, so there would
be a lot of speculation on who the people were.
Answer that wasn't the focus of the comments. No, question
you said it wasn't the focus. Did you realize that
would happened? Answer sure, I mean this was a case
that had been already This litigation had been going on
at that point for seven years, and lots of people
were following it. The case is one of the most
egregious examples of a violation of crime victim's rights in
the history of the country. Against that context, yes, there
was going to be people interested in every word that
was going into the pleting, whether we had gone more
broadly or more narrowly than we did. People were going
to be interested in this question. And as of December thirtieth,
twenty fourteen, redacted had the same ability to disclose who
these individuals were publicly as did Jeffrey Epstein. Correct, because
she had personal knowledge of who they were. Answer she
had the ability to speak words. But again, I think
it's preposterous to say that a victim of sex trafficking
has the same power as a sex trafficker to disclose information.
For example, redacted could be attacked, and I think, as
we're talking about yesterday, we have seen the evidence of
the kind of attack that powerful people can mount against
the victims of sex trafficking. So to say that the
young women in sex trafficking schemes have the same power
as their traffickers to do this, I'm sorry, I'm going
to have to take a break. All right, folks, We're
gonna wrap up right here and in the next episode
dealing with the topic, we're gonna pick up where we
left off. All of the information that goes with this
episode can be found in the description box.