1
00:00:00,240 --> 00:00:03,160
Speaker 1: What's up, everyone, and welcome to another episode of the

2
00:00:03,160 --> 00:00:06,480
Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're going to pick up

3
00:00:06,519 --> 00:00:10,320
where we left off with the Paul Cassell deposition in

4
00:00:10,359 --> 00:00:16,359
the lawsuit against Alan Dershowitz. Question. Had you finished your answer?

5
00:00:16,399 --> 00:00:20,920
Mister Gassell? Answer? I think I had? Question? Okay answer.

6
00:00:21,320 --> 00:00:23,760
Thank you for letting me take a break. I appreciate it.

7
00:00:25,199 --> 00:00:27,800
Mister Scrola, could you just read back the last question

8
00:00:27,879 --> 00:00:31,039
for me. I want to orientate myself as to where

9
00:00:31,039 --> 00:00:34,320
we are. Thank you Scrolla, Yeah, I didn't think the

10
00:00:34,359 --> 00:00:37,640
answer was he gets caught off by Cassell. I guess

11
00:00:37,640 --> 00:00:40,679
I was mid sentenced, So I think I will just

12
00:00:40,719 --> 00:00:44,520
stick with the same word preposterous. One thing that occurred

13
00:00:44,520 --> 00:00:46,600
to me during the break in the context of this

14
00:00:46,679 --> 00:00:49,759
case is that there had been allegations that Epstein was

15
00:00:49,799 --> 00:00:53,840
part of the sex trafficking organization, had video cameras mounted

16
00:00:54,039 --> 00:00:57,759
throughout many of his mansions. And so whereas a young

17
00:00:57,799 --> 00:01:00,960
woman could say, or a young girl could say, look

18
00:01:01,240 --> 00:01:04,280
I was a victim of sex abuse, people would attack her.

19
00:01:04,439 --> 00:01:06,879
People wouldn't believe her, and unless she had, you know,

20
00:01:06,959 --> 00:01:10,159
corroborating evidence, people would say, well, look it didn't happen,

21
00:01:10,920 --> 00:01:13,400
and so Epstein had managed to collect apparently a lot

22
00:01:13,439 --> 00:01:16,439
of videotapes and other kinds of information that would have

23
00:01:16,480 --> 00:01:19,959
been given them the ability to make the blackmail kinds

24
00:01:19,959 --> 00:01:22,879
of charges that the girls that he was trafficking would

25
00:01:23,239 --> 00:01:27,719
not have the ability to do. Simpson, mister Gassell, didn't

26
00:01:27,719 --> 00:01:31,519
you testify yesterday that any videotapes from mister Epstein's house

27
00:01:32,239 --> 00:01:35,439
had been destroyed? Answer? When I used the word destroyed,

28
00:01:35,680 --> 00:01:38,760
I probably should have been more precise. They'd been concealed

29
00:01:39,040 --> 00:01:42,280
from law enforcement, is what I meant. That when Palm

30
00:01:42,359 --> 00:01:45,719
Beach police went up to Epstein's mansion, they found surveillance

31
00:01:45,760 --> 00:01:49,400
cameras and other cameras. I can't remember exactly where the

32
00:01:49,439 --> 00:01:52,359
cameras were, but they found surveillance cameras, and when they

33
00:01:52,359 --> 00:01:55,200
look for the tapes associated with those cameras, I use

34
00:01:55,239 --> 00:01:58,760
the word destroyed. And as I say, I probably should

35
00:01:58,760 --> 00:02:01,400
have said they were missing, and so they were never

36
00:02:01,439 --> 00:02:06,000
able to locate those those missing videotapes. Question, So, as

37
00:02:06,000 --> 00:02:09,360
of December thirtieth, of twenty fourteen, to your knowledge, there

38
00:02:09,360 --> 00:02:13,280
are no videotapes available. Answer, there are no videotapes available

39
00:02:13,439 --> 00:02:16,199
to law enforcement or to Brad and his pro bono

40
00:02:16,280 --> 00:02:19,919
crime victim attorneys to help document our case. We were

41
00:02:19,919 --> 00:02:22,479
trying to get those, and we were continuing to try

42
00:02:22,520 --> 00:02:26,159
to get those. But obviously Epstein and his criminal associates

43
00:02:26,759 --> 00:02:29,719
have had the ability to destroy the evidence that's been

44
00:02:30,039 --> 00:02:33,680
what we're trying to gather. Question and your answer A

45
00:02:33,719 --> 00:02:38,199
couple of questions. Answer, I'm sorry, I shouldn't say destroyed.

46
00:02:38,879 --> 00:02:42,080
They have been able to conceal would probably be a

47
00:02:42,120 --> 00:02:45,120
more accurate term the evidence that we are trying together.

48
00:02:46,960 --> 00:02:49,719
Question the question an answer your answer to my question

49
00:02:49,960 --> 00:02:52,719
A couple of questions. Ago you talked about whether mister

50
00:02:52,759 --> 00:02:57,159
Epstein and redacted would have the same or equal ability

51
00:02:57,319 --> 00:03:00,719
to disclose what these prominent politicians, it said, had done.

52
00:03:00,800 --> 00:03:05,719
Correct answer, correct question, without attempting to make any comparison.

53
00:03:06,280 --> 00:03:09,439
Would you agree? Would you not that have as December thirtieth,

54
00:03:09,479 --> 00:03:13,240
twenty fourteen, redacted had the ability to name the names

55
00:03:13,240 --> 00:03:19,560
of people who are referenced in the document. Answer physical ability. Yes. Question, Well,

56
00:03:19,639 --> 00:03:22,120
let me ask you this. You say a well known

57
00:03:22,120 --> 00:03:26,319
prime minister, is that Prime Minister Barack MS McCauley. I'm

58
00:03:26,360 --> 00:03:29,599
gonna instruct you not to reveal any attorney client communication

59
00:03:29,759 --> 00:03:33,240
you had with redacted on the specifics of her council

60
00:03:33,599 --> 00:03:38,960
to you about those individuals. Question is one of the

61
00:03:39,000 --> 00:03:42,919
other one of the other powerful business executives Les Wexner

62
00:03:44,280 --> 00:03:49,800
McAuley Again, same instruction, mister Simpson. Okay, now you mentioned yesterday,

63
00:03:49,840 --> 00:03:52,599
well a moment ago, you testified that these, in your view,

64
00:03:52,840 --> 00:03:57,479
these allegations about other powerful men further redacted legal position

65
00:03:57,719 --> 00:04:02,360
in the case. Correct answer, yes, question, and it's also

66
00:04:02,400 --> 00:04:06,080
your position. I assume that the allegations regarding Professor Dershowitz

67
00:04:06,240 --> 00:04:13,560
and Prince Andrew further redacted legal position. Is that right? Answer? Absolutely? Question.

68
00:04:13,879 --> 00:04:17,439
Does the fact that Judge Mara struck those allegations as impertinent,

69
00:04:17,639 --> 00:04:20,879
scandalous and completely irrelevant to the case cause you to

70
00:04:20,920 --> 00:04:25,000
reassess scrolla excuse me? Is that intended to be a

71
00:04:25,000 --> 00:04:29,279
direct quote? Simpson? Back up? What is your understanding of

72
00:04:29,399 --> 00:04:32,759
Judge Mara's ruling with respect to these allegations about Professor

73
00:04:32,800 --> 00:04:37,920
Dershowitz and Prince Andrew. Answer that they were premature. Question

74
00:04:38,199 --> 00:04:43,079
that's your understanding of disorder? Answer? Yes, question, okay, answer,

75
00:04:43,360 --> 00:04:46,680
and maybe I should see some skepticism there, so let

76
00:04:46,720 --> 00:04:53,079
me explain why I think those allegations are appropriate. Question, Well,

77
00:04:53,120 --> 00:04:56,600
we'll just pull the order itself. Answer sure, question at

78
00:04:56,600 --> 00:04:59,600
the appropriate time. But first, your understanding is that the

79
00:04:59,680 --> 00:05:03,199
judge didn't find that those allegations at the time that

80
00:05:03,199 --> 00:05:05,920
they were made were so irrelevant to the case that

81
00:05:05,959 --> 00:05:09,240
they should be stricken from the public record. Answer in

82
00:05:09,279 --> 00:05:13,199
that pleading at the time, I remember we had our brief.

83
00:05:13,319 --> 00:05:16,279
Let me explain the nine reasons why we thought that

84
00:05:16,360 --> 00:05:19,639
those allegations were relevant to the case. Since I think

85
00:05:19,680 --> 00:05:23,160
your question calls for that question, Are those the nine

86
00:05:23,199 --> 00:05:26,160
reasons you gave yesterday? Answer? No, I didn't have a

87
00:05:26,240 --> 00:05:29,800
chance to question. Are they the nine reasons that are

88
00:05:29,839 --> 00:05:33,839
set forth in your brief? Answer? They are. They're the

89
00:05:33,920 --> 00:05:37,879
nine reasons that are set forth in the brief. Question Okay,

90
00:05:38,000 --> 00:05:40,319
And Judge Marra had that brief in front of them

91
00:05:40,959 --> 00:05:44,879
when he held that these allegations were so not relevant

92
00:05:45,000 --> 00:05:47,240
to the issues before the court that they would be

93
00:05:47,319 --> 00:05:50,519
stricken and not part of the public record. Answer at

94
00:05:50,519 --> 00:05:54,279
the time in that particular pleading, I think you're mischaracterizing

95
00:05:54,319 --> 00:05:58,360
Judge Mara's ruling in its entirety. He specifically said that

96
00:05:58,399 --> 00:06:02,000
the allegations could be reasserted if they were relevant to

97
00:06:02,040 --> 00:06:05,279
issues that are that were coming up. And so in

98
00:06:05,360 --> 00:06:08,839
following that ruling, we went to the US Attorney's Office,

99
00:06:09,079 --> 00:06:12,639
propounded discovery requests and said, look, we believe you're sitting

100
00:06:12,639 --> 00:06:16,680
on information that Dershowitz was, as you know, connected with

101
00:06:16,720 --> 00:06:19,439
the criminal trafficking here. We would like you to produce

102
00:06:19,480 --> 00:06:22,800
those documents. And rather than say, hey, we don't have

103
00:06:22,839 --> 00:06:25,759
any such documents, the US Attorney's Office gave us the

104
00:06:25,839 --> 00:06:29,680
response indicating to our view that there were such documents.

105
00:06:29,839 --> 00:06:32,680
And as you know, since you're one of mister Dershowitz attorneys,

106
00:06:32,839 --> 00:06:35,160
we have drafted a pleating now to try and collect

107
00:06:35,199 --> 00:06:39,959
that information federal law enforcement agencies have collected and to

108
00:06:40,040 --> 00:06:43,639
figure out the appropriate way to litigate that so that

109
00:06:43,680 --> 00:06:46,560
we can get that information and move forward in the case.

110
00:06:47,839 --> 00:06:50,920
That's just one example of how the allegations, if they

111
00:06:50,920 --> 00:06:53,560
were premature at that point, are no longer going to

112
00:06:53,600 --> 00:06:57,160
be premature as the case moves along. Question, is it

113
00:06:57,319 --> 00:07:01,160
or is it not your understanding that Judge Marrow ruled

114
00:07:01,160 --> 00:07:03,639
that the allegation in the pleading in front of you

115
00:07:03,920 --> 00:07:06,639
were so irrelevant to the pleading in which they were

116
00:07:06,680 --> 00:07:09,959
stated that they should be stricken from the public record.

117
00:07:10,759 --> 00:07:16,199
Answer in that particular pleading at that particular time, that's right. Question,

118
00:07:16,560 --> 00:07:19,240
does that cause you to reassess in any way having

119
00:07:19,279 --> 00:07:23,480
filed this document? Answer? Well, I think certainly as a

120
00:07:23,480 --> 00:07:27,079
tactical matter, we should have reserved the allegations for another motion.

121
00:07:27,560 --> 00:07:30,199
I think that's you know, certainly. Now we are sort

122
00:07:30,240 --> 00:07:33,439
of speculating would we have done something different if we

123
00:07:33,519 --> 00:07:36,319
knew that? And the answer to that is sure, we

124
00:07:36,360 --> 00:07:38,720
would have tried to do something that Judge Marra thought

125
00:07:38,800 --> 00:07:42,680
was appropriate way to handle it. Question and Judge Marra

126
00:07:43,040 --> 00:07:46,279
also a reminded counsel of their rule eleven obligations. Didn't

127
00:07:46,319 --> 00:07:50,680
he answer? That's right? Yeah, question, And did it cause

128
00:07:50,720 --> 00:07:53,800
you to question not tactics, but whether you were acting

129
00:07:53,839 --> 00:07:59,680
properly in filing this SCROLLA? Excuse me, Simpson cuts them off.

130
00:08:00,000 --> 00:08:02,839
I'm just asking if it caused him to reassess SCROLLA.

131
00:08:03,079 --> 00:08:05,639
I understand what you're asking, and you're asking him about

132
00:08:05,639 --> 00:08:10,480
his mental process in connection with pending litigation. That's work product.

133
00:08:10,800 --> 00:08:14,560
I instruct you not to answer that question. Simpson. All right,

134
00:08:14,600 --> 00:08:17,759
you testified yesterday that one reason you found the filing

135
00:08:17,800 --> 00:08:20,480
of the complaint on behalf of Jane Doe one h two,

136
00:08:20,800 --> 00:08:25,120
who is redacted by Bob Joseph Berg. And why that

137
00:08:25,240 --> 00:08:28,480
was significant was that Bob Joseph Berg had been selected

138
00:08:28,519 --> 00:08:31,480
by the United States Attorney of the Southern District of

139
00:08:31,519 --> 00:08:37,039
Florida to represent victims correct answer, Yes, through the NPA. Yeah,

140
00:08:37,120 --> 00:08:40,840
there was an apparatus that led to his selection. Question

141
00:08:41,080 --> 00:08:44,120
and does that answer reflect holding the US Attorney for

142
00:08:44,200 --> 00:08:47,000
the Southern District of Florida in that office in the

143
00:08:47,039 --> 00:08:51,000
highest regard? Answer? Sure. Question do you contend at the

144
00:08:51,039 --> 00:08:53,720
time the United States Attorney for the Southern District of

145
00:08:53,759 --> 00:08:58,679
Florida negotiated the NPA, they knew that Professor Dershowitz himself

146
00:08:58,879 --> 00:09:02,600
had been involved in abuse of miners. Answer. I don't

147
00:09:02,639 --> 00:09:05,879
know exactly what information they had. I do know that

148
00:09:05,960 --> 00:09:09,639
we had been propounding discovery requests on all of the subjects,

149
00:09:09,879 --> 00:09:14,440
including Professor dershowitz involvement. When the US Attorney knew they

150
00:09:14,440 --> 00:09:17,679
are asserting privilege over that, I would wish that they

151
00:09:17,720 --> 00:09:20,399
would waive privilege or at least provide the information to

152
00:09:20,480 --> 00:09:23,679
pro bono crime victims attorneys that they have so that

153
00:09:23,720 --> 00:09:26,360
we can get to the bottom of this, but there

154
00:09:26,360 --> 00:09:30,039
have been a NonStop series of assertions of privileges and

155
00:09:30,200 --> 00:09:33,799
other barriers interposed against us in this case, and I

156
00:09:33,840 --> 00:09:37,720
think inappropriately so so we have been arguing that now

157
00:09:37,759 --> 00:09:41,000
for a number of years. Question, would you agree with

158
00:09:41,039 --> 00:09:44,200
me that the United States Attorney's Office had been aware

159
00:09:44,240 --> 00:09:48,039
Professor Dershowitz had engaged in sexual misconduct with miners or

160
00:09:48,120 --> 00:09:51,879
himself observed mister Epstein do so, that it would have

161
00:09:51,960 --> 00:09:55,279
been improper and unethical for them to let mister Professor

162
00:09:55,320 --> 00:09:59,720
Dershowitz negotiate the terms of the NPA with them. Answer,

163
00:10:00,080 --> 00:10:03,159
if they had direct knowledge of that, sure, I mean,

164
00:10:03,399 --> 00:10:06,000
but the realities are a little bit more complicated. In

165
00:10:06,039 --> 00:10:09,720
the Professor Dershowitz over the last couple of days has

166
00:10:09,759 --> 00:10:13,600
frequently used the word continuum, and so if they they

167
00:10:13,600 --> 00:10:17,039
are certain of that, it absolutely would have been unethical.

168
00:10:18,519 --> 00:10:22,080
The question is, well, what if they had suspicion or

169
00:10:22,120 --> 00:10:25,720
what if, you know, a reasonable suspicion or a possible suspicion.

170
00:10:26,279 --> 00:10:28,879
Those are the kinds of dimensions that you've got to,

171
00:10:29,240 --> 00:10:31,919
you know, take into account in the real world about

172
00:10:31,919 --> 00:10:35,039
you know, what they what they would have done. I mean,

173
00:10:35,080 --> 00:10:37,919
it seems pretty clear for example, that at some point,

174
00:10:38,080 --> 00:10:40,240
you know, later on, they got a black book in

175
00:10:40,279 --> 00:10:44,519
which Professor Dershowitz's name had been circled. Now, what they

176
00:10:44,559 --> 00:10:48,639
did with that information, I don't know. Question, And what

177
00:10:48,679 --> 00:10:51,360
they did with the fact that Courtney Love and Donald

178
00:10:51,399 --> 00:10:55,600
Trump were circled, you don't know. Also correct answer. That's right,

179
00:10:55,639 --> 00:10:59,960
fairpoint question, But somehow it's suspicious as to mister dershe

180
00:11:00,600 --> 00:11:07,600
but not as to anyone else. Mister Scrolla, objection argumentative, Cassell,

181
00:11:08,080 --> 00:11:10,600
I'm glad to argue on that point. Let me because

182
00:11:10,679 --> 00:11:16,799
they Simpson, I'll withdraw the question casell all right, because

183
00:11:16,840 --> 00:11:19,679
I would have had a substantial argument on that Simpson.

184
00:11:19,879 --> 00:11:23,240
I always draw the question, Scrolla, and I always draw

185
00:11:23,279 --> 00:11:26,720
the objection Simpson. Thank you, all right, folks. We're gonna

186
00:11:26,720 --> 00:11:28,799
wrap up this episode right here, and in the next

187
00:11:28,840 --> 00:11:31,519
episode dealing with the topic, we're gonna pick up where

188
00:11:31,519 --> 00:11:34,440
we left off. All the information that goes with this

189
00:11:34,559 --> 00:11:37,840
episode can be found in the description box.