1
00:00:00,120 --> 00:00:03,120
Speaker 1: What's up, everyone, and welcome to another episode of the

2
00:00:03,120 --> 00:00:06,519
Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're going to pick up

3
00:00:06,519 --> 00:00:09,960
where we left off with the Paul Cassell deposition in

4
00:00:10,039 --> 00:00:14,919
the lawsuit against Alan Dershowitz. Question, I want to go back,

5
00:00:14,960 --> 00:00:18,679
mister Cassell, get back to yesterday's exhibits. I'm going to

6
00:00:18,719 --> 00:00:22,079
hand you what was mark yesterday as Cassel exhibit number two,

7
00:00:22,559 --> 00:00:25,160
which is a joint oer motion. And when you have

8
00:00:25,280 --> 00:00:27,280
that in front of you? Do you have that in

9
00:00:27,280 --> 00:00:31,719
front of you? Answer? I do? Question all right? Would

10
00:00:31,719 --> 00:00:34,280
you find my copy if you would turn to page

11
00:00:34,479 --> 00:00:37,320
bottom of page three, top of page four, Do you

12
00:00:37,399 --> 00:00:40,799
have that? Answer? Got it? Question? All right? I'm going

13
00:00:40,840 --> 00:00:43,119
to read it. Tell me if I've read it correctly?

14
00:00:43,399 --> 00:00:48,359
Answer okay. Question Epstein also sexually trafficked the then minor

15
00:00:48,520 --> 00:00:54,119
Jane Doe and that's redacted correct answer yes, question making

16
00:00:54,159 --> 00:00:58,320
her available for sex to politically connected and financially powerful people.

17
00:00:58,799 --> 00:01:02,759
Epstein's purposes lending Jane Doe, along with other young girls

18
00:01:02,920 --> 00:01:06,640
to such powerful people were to ingratiate himself with them

19
00:01:06,680 --> 00:01:11,439
for business, personal, political and financial gain, as well as

20
00:01:11,480 --> 00:01:15,239
to obtain potential blackmail information. Did I read that correctly.

21
00:01:15,519 --> 00:01:18,640
Answer you did. Answer, what did you mean by obtained

22
00:01:18,640 --> 00:01:23,159
potential blackmail information? Answer? Okay, let me double check. Once

23
00:01:23,159 --> 00:01:26,159
the criminal organization had put the bait out, so to speak,

24
00:01:26,640 --> 00:01:29,680
to various people, and they took the bait. These are

25
00:01:29,760 --> 00:01:33,120
young girls who were being sexually abused. Once the criminal

26
00:01:33,200 --> 00:01:36,879
organization had gotten people to sexually abuse these young girls,

27
00:01:37,079 --> 00:01:40,000
at that point they had information that they could use

28
00:01:40,200 --> 00:01:44,000
to blackmail those people and then get favors in exchange.

29
00:01:44,599 --> 00:01:47,680
And that's Epstein at the head of the organization, would

30
00:01:47,719 --> 00:01:50,040
be the one who would benefit most directly from the

31
00:01:50,040 --> 00:01:54,319
blackmail information. Question and by blackmail information, do you mean

32
00:01:54,359 --> 00:01:57,200
that mister Epstein then had information that he could threaten

33
00:01:57,280 --> 00:02:00,599
to disclose if the other person didn't do what Epstein

34
00:02:00,640 --> 00:02:05,400
asked them to do. Answer precisely. Question as of December thirtieth,

35
00:02:05,400 --> 00:02:09,960
twenty fourteen, if redacted had access to publicity, she had

36
00:02:10,039 --> 00:02:14,080
exactly the same ability to blackmail people. Isn't that true? Answer?

37
00:02:14,240 --> 00:02:17,960
Absolutely not. A billionaire has far more resources than a

38
00:02:18,039 --> 00:02:22,400
victim of child sex abuse, particularly one that's been forced

39
00:02:22,400 --> 00:02:27,360
into hiding in Australia to escape the criminal organization. So

40
00:02:27,560 --> 00:02:30,520
for you to suggest that redacted had the same ability

41
00:02:30,560 --> 00:02:36,000
to blackmail somebody as Jeffrey Epstein, Is I think preposterous question?

42
00:02:36,680 --> 00:02:40,080
As of redacted had the same ability as Jeffrey Epstein

43
00:02:40,159 --> 00:02:43,039
to reveal publicly the names of the people who she

44
00:02:43,080 --> 00:02:47,919
says sexually abused her, as did mister Epstein. Is that true? Answer?

45
00:02:48,039 --> 00:02:51,599
You're talking about physical ability to speak words? They both

46
00:02:51,599 --> 00:02:56,719
have the same physical ability to speak the English language. Yes, question,

47
00:02:56,919 --> 00:03:00,080
And in fact, before at least three years before or

48
00:03:00,159 --> 00:03:03,919
December thirtieth, twenty fourteen, she had the ability to be

49
00:03:04,039 --> 00:03:07,120
quoted in an article, more than one article in the

50
00:03:07,199 --> 00:03:11,520
Daily Mail in London about her experiences. Correct answer, that's

51
00:03:11,520 --> 00:03:15,520
correct question? And am I correct that of December thirtieth,

52
00:03:15,680 --> 00:03:18,919
twenty fourteen, you didn't know whether she was paid for

53
00:03:19,039 --> 00:03:22,800
that interview or not. Answer? I wasn't sure. That's right question.

54
00:03:23,120 --> 00:03:27,319
And after December thirtieth, twenty fourteen, the references to Prince

55
00:03:27,360 --> 00:03:34,240
Andrew and Professor Dershowitz generated international publicity. Isn't that true? Answer? Okay? Yes,

56
00:03:34,280 --> 00:03:37,960
I mean in a general sense, I could ask which allegations,

57
00:03:38,199 --> 00:03:42,960
but these allegations did generate publicity? Certainly question? Yes, the

58
00:03:43,000 --> 00:03:47,280
allegations in your jointerer motion that Prince Andrew and Professor

59
00:03:47,319 --> 00:03:50,280
Dershowitz had abused or redacted then known as Jane do

60
00:03:50,439 --> 00:03:55,680
number three generated a buyerstorm of publicity? Did it not answer?

61
00:03:56,000 --> 00:03:59,840
It generated a lot of publicity. Yes, question, and within

62
00:04:00,400 --> 00:04:03,560
that you were participating in an attempt to arrange an

63
00:04:03,599 --> 00:04:08,120
interview with ABC News. Isn't that true? Answer? That was

64
00:04:08,120 --> 00:04:11,759
within days. The chronology is important here. The allegations were

65
00:04:11,800 --> 00:04:16,079
filed in the pleating on December thirtieth. Several days after that,

66
00:04:16,199 --> 00:04:19,399
mister Dershowitz then took to the airwaves to denounce not

67
00:04:19,480 --> 00:04:23,040
only Brad and me, but particularly of concern to me,

68
00:04:23,519 --> 00:04:27,720
was redacted, this victim of sex trafficking. And at that point,

69
00:04:28,040 --> 00:04:30,519
as one of her attorneys, I was looking for a

70
00:04:30,519 --> 00:04:33,879
way to respond to that media assault on her by

71
00:04:33,920 --> 00:04:39,639
mister Dershowitz. Mister Simpson moved to strike as non responsive question.

72
00:04:40,399 --> 00:04:43,639
Within twenty four hours of this pleading being filed, there

73
00:04:43,759 --> 00:04:48,279
was publicity about the allegations against Prince Andrew and mister Dershowitz.

74
00:04:48,480 --> 00:04:52,360
Professor Dershowitz, isn't that correct? Answer? I don't know the

75
00:04:52,399 --> 00:04:56,000
exact timeframe, but you know roughly that time sounds right

76
00:04:56,040 --> 00:05:01,360
about right question. If Professor Dershowitz had never said anything,

77
00:05:01,839 --> 00:05:04,959
wouldn't you expect that these allegations as to Prince Andrew

78
00:05:05,160 --> 00:05:10,360
in particular and Professor Dershowitz would get substantial publicity. Answer

79
00:05:11,680 --> 00:05:14,600
there was, he gets cut off by Scrolla. Excuse me

80
00:05:14,839 --> 00:05:18,199
to the extent that the question calls for speculation. I object,

81
00:05:19,199 --> 00:05:22,319
mister Simpson. No, I'm asking for a state of mind

82
00:05:22,439 --> 00:05:26,600
when he filed the document the witness, there's no doubt

83
00:05:26,680 --> 00:05:29,519
that he gets cut off by Scrolla. So the question

84
00:05:29,680 --> 00:05:33,319
is at the time of the filing. Mister Simpson, please

85
00:05:33,600 --> 00:05:37,079
do not coach the witness Scrolla. No, I'm not coaching them.

86
00:05:37,560 --> 00:05:40,519
I just want to understand the question. You're asking what

87
00:05:40,560 --> 00:05:42,279
his state of mind was at the time of the

88
00:05:42,319 --> 00:05:47,600
filing Simpson? Did he anticipate Scrolla? Because the other question

89
00:05:47,800 --> 00:05:55,480
was what's your position today? Simpson? Mister Scrolla, really, Scarrolla,

90
00:05:55,680 --> 00:05:58,000
that's a different question. So I just want to know

91
00:05:58,040 --> 00:06:00,920
which one you're asking. Do you want to know is

92
00:06:00,920 --> 00:06:03,839
state of mind men or his state of mind today? Simpson.

93
00:06:04,199 --> 00:06:06,600
I'll take that as an objection to the form of

94
00:06:06,639 --> 00:06:11,199
the question. Scrolla. Once again, it's a request for a

95
00:06:11,199 --> 00:06:16,639
clarification of an ambiguous question, Simpson, it's coaching the witness

96
00:06:18,160 --> 00:06:21,920
question as of he gets cut off by Cassel. Yeah,

97
00:06:22,000 --> 00:06:25,399
I don't need any coaching question. Let me ask the

98
00:06:25,480 --> 00:06:29,120
question as of December thirtieth, that's true as of we

99
00:06:29,199 --> 00:06:33,560
agree that's coaching. Answer, But that wasn't coaching. That wasn't coaching.

100
00:06:34,360 --> 00:06:38,639
So the suggestion that it's coaching it is not fair question. Okay,

101
00:06:38,720 --> 00:06:42,720
we disagree. As of December thirtieth, twenty fourteen, did you

102
00:06:42,759 --> 00:06:46,639
anticipate that naming Prince Andrew in a public filing as

103
00:06:46,680 --> 00:06:51,800
having abused or redacted would generate substantial publicity? Answer? Substantial

104
00:06:51,879 --> 00:06:55,800
is a debatable word, but certainly it's going to generate publicity, Yes,

105
00:06:56,480 --> 00:07:02,160
publicity about the allegations. Question, and the allegations are that

106
00:07:02,240 --> 00:07:06,199
Prince Andrew had sexually abused redacted? Correct answer, that was

107
00:07:06,279 --> 00:07:09,839
one of the allegations in here. Sure. Question, and the

108
00:07:09,839 --> 00:07:15,000
allegation that Professor Dershowitz had sexually abused redacted? Correct answer,

109
00:07:15,079 --> 00:07:18,639
that's right. What we were, what we were starting to

110
00:07:18,800 --> 00:07:22,199
document and allege here was the terrible things that Epstein's

111
00:07:22,199 --> 00:07:26,199
criminal organization had done. Question. Let me refer you to

112
00:07:26,240 --> 00:07:29,920
page six of your filing. It's the first full paragraph.

113
00:07:30,319 --> 00:07:34,160
Answer yep question, I'm going to read it. Epstein also

114
00:07:34,240 --> 00:07:37,959
trafficked Jane Don number three for sexual purposes to many

115
00:07:38,279 --> 00:07:45,040
other powerful men answer okay question, including numerous prominent American politicians,

116
00:07:45,319 --> 00:07:49,720
powerful business executives, foreign presidents, a well known prime minister,

117
00:07:50,199 --> 00:07:54,879
and other world leaders. Jane Epstein required Jane Don number

118
00:07:54,879 --> 00:07:58,120
three to describe the events that she had with these

119
00:07:58,160 --> 00:08:01,519
men so that he could potentially black mel Did I

120
00:08:01,560 --> 00:08:05,839
read that correctly? Answer you did? Question with respect to blackmail,

121
00:08:06,079 --> 00:08:09,079
the ability to blackmail? Is that the same potential we

122
00:08:09,160 --> 00:08:14,040
talked about a moment ago in your testimony. Answer sure, question,

123
00:08:14,439 --> 00:08:16,800
And what you're referring to there is he gets cut

124
00:08:16,839 --> 00:08:20,600
off by Cassel roughly Yeah. I mean, if there's something

125
00:08:20,639 --> 00:08:24,560
that you want clarified, go ahead and clarify it. Question.

126
00:08:24,879 --> 00:08:27,160
I just wanted to make sure I understand correctly that

127
00:08:27,240 --> 00:08:30,920
when you refer to Epstein requiring redacted to describe these

128
00:08:30,959 --> 00:08:34,519
events so that he could potentially blackmail them, what you

129
00:08:34,559 --> 00:08:37,480
had in mind was Epstein wanted to know what redacted

130
00:08:37,519 --> 00:08:40,679
did with these men so that he had the ability

131
00:08:40,720 --> 00:08:43,240
to threaten to disclose it if they didn't do what

132
00:08:43,360 --> 00:08:47,360
he wanted them to do. Answer that was part of it. Yes,

133
00:08:47,960 --> 00:08:51,039
question and isn't it true you could have accomplished in

134
00:08:51,120 --> 00:08:55,159
terms of furthering redacted's legal interests, You could have accomplished

135
00:08:55,200 --> 00:08:59,440
exactly the same thing by saying Epstein also trafficked Jane

136
00:08:59,480 --> 00:09:02,600
do number three three for sexual purposes to other well

137
00:09:02,639 --> 00:09:07,799
known men period. Answer No, I don't think so. Question Okay,

138
00:09:07,840 --> 00:09:12,360
you felt it furthered her legal interest to specify American politicians,

139
00:09:12,600 --> 00:09:16,879
powerful business executives, foreign presidents, a well known prime minister,

140
00:09:17,440 --> 00:09:20,919
and world leaders. That was you believe that further her

141
00:09:21,000 --> 00:09:27,759
legal interest? Answer? Yeah. Question did you also anticipate that

142
00:09:27,879 --> 00:09:31,120
would titillate the press, so to speak, so there would

143
00:09:31,159 --> 00:09:33,759
be a lot of speculation on who the people were.

144
00:09:34,559 --> 00:09:38,679
Answer that wasn't the focus of the comments. No, question

145
00:09:39,120 --> 00:09:41,399
you said it wasn't the focus. Did you realize that

146
00:09:41,440 --> 00:09:44,759
would happened? Answer sure, I mean this was a case

147
00:09:44,919 --> 00:09:48,279
that had been already This litigation had been going on

148
00:09:48,360 --> 00:09:50,840
at that point for seven years, and lots of people

149
00:09:50,879 --> 00:09:53,559
were following it. The case is one of the most

150
00:09:53,559 --> 00:09:57,480
egregious examples of a violation of crime victim's rights in

151
00:09:57,519 --> 00:10:01,879
the history of the country. Against that context, yes, there

152
00:10:01,960 --> 00:10:04,240
was going to be people interested in every word that

153
00:10:04,360 --> 00:10:07,320
was going into the pleting, whether we had gone more

154
00:10:07,320 --> 00:10:10,519
broadly or more narrowly than we did. People were going

155
00:10:10,559 --> 00:10:14,360
to be interested in this question. And as of December thirtieth,

156
00:10:14,399 --> 00:10:19,120
twenty fourteen, redacted had the same ability to disclose who

157
00:10:19,159 --> 00:10:23,120
these individuals were publicly as did Jeffrey Epstein. Correct, because

158
00:10:23,120 --> 00:10:26,600
she had personal knowledge of who they were. Answer she

159
00:10:26,679 --> 00:10:29,320
had the ability to speak words. But again, I think

160
00:10:29,360 --> 00:10:32,320
it's preposterous to say that a victim of sex trafficking

161
00:10:32,639 --> 00:10:36,360
has the same power as a sex trafficker to disclose information.

162
00:10:37,080 --> 00:10:40,080
For example, redacted could be attacked, and I think, as

163
00:10:40,120 --> 00:10:43,039
we're talking about yesterday, we have seen the evidence of

164
00:10:43,080 --> 00:10:46,159
the kind of attack that powerful people can mount against

165
00:10:46,159 --> 00:10:50,080
the victims of sex trafficking. So to say that the

166
00:10:50,120 --> 00:10:53,480
young women in sex trafficking schemes have the same power

167
00:10:53,519 --> 00:10:56,600
as their traffickers to do this, I'm sorry, I'm going

168
00:10:56,679 --> 00:10:59,360
to have to take a break. All right, folks, We're

169
00:10:59,360 --> 00:11:01,759
gonna wrap up right here and in the next episode

170
00:11:01,799 --> 00:11:04,039
dealing with the topic, we're gonna pick up where we

171
00:11:04,159 --> 00:11:07,000
left off. All of the information that goes with this

172
00:11:07,080 --> 00:11:10,240
episode can be found in the description box.