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. Had you finished your answer?
Mister Gassell? Answer? I think I had? Question? Okay answer.
Thank you for letting me take a break. I appreciate it.
Mister Scrola, could you just read back the last question
for me. I want to orientate myself as to where
we are. Thank you Scrolla, Yeah, I didn't think the
answer was he gets caught off by Cassell. I guess
I was mid sentenced, So I think I will just
stick with the same word preposterous. One thing that occurred
to me during the break in the context of this
case is that there had been allegations that Epstein was
part of the sex trafficking organization, had video cameras mounted
throughout many of his mansions. And so whereas a young
woman could say, or a young girl could say, look
I was a victim of sex abuse, people would attack her.
People wouldn't believe her, and unless she had, you know,
corroborating evidence, people would say, well, look it didn't happen,
and so Epstein had managed to collect apparently a lot
of videotapes and other kinds of information that would have
been given them the ability to make the blackmail kinds
of charges that the girls that he was trafficking would
not have the ability to do. Simpson, mister Gassell, didn't
you testify yesterday that any videotapes from mister Epstein's house
had been destroyed? Answer? When I used the word destroyed,
I probably should have been more precise. They'd been concealed
from law enforcement, is what I meant. That when Palm
Beach police went up to Epstein's mansion, they found surveillance
cameras and other cameras. I can't remember exactly where the
cameras were, but they found surveillance cameras, and when they
look for the tapes associated with those cameras, I use
the word destroyed. And as I say, I probably should
have said they were missing, and so they were never
able to locate those those missing videotapes. Question, So, as
of December thirtieth, of twenty fourteen, to your knowledge, there
are no videotapes available. Answer, there are no videotapes available
to law enforcement or to Brad and his pro bono
crime victim attorneys to help document our case. We were
trying to get those, and we were continuing to try
to get those. But obviously Epstein and his criminal associates
have had the ability to destroy the evidence that's been
what we're trying to gather. Question and your answer A
couple of questions. Answer, I'm sorry, I shouldn't say destroyed.
They have been able to conceal would probably be a
more accurate term the evidence that we are trying together.
Question the question an answer your answer to my question
A couple of questions. Ago you talked about whether mister
Epstein and redacted would have the same or equal ability
to disclose what these prominent politicians, it said, had done.
Correct answer, correct question, without attempting to make any comparison.
Would you agree? Would you not that have as December thirtieth,
twenty fourteen, redacted had the ability to name the names
of people who are referenced in the document. Answer physical ability. Yes. Question, Well,
let me ask you this. You say a well known
prime minister, is that Prime Minister Barack MS McCauley. I'm
gonna instruct you not to reveal any attorney client communication
you had with redacted on the specifics of her council
to you about those individuals. Question is one of the
other one of the other powerful business executives Les Wexner
McAuley Again, same instruction, mister Simpson. Okay, now you mentioned yesterday,
well a moment ago, you testified that these, in your view,
these allegations about other powerful men further redacted legal position
in the case. Correct answer, yes, question, and it's also
your position. I assume that the allegations regarding Professor Dershowitz
and Prince Andrew further redacted legal position. Is that right? Answer? Absolutely? Question.
Does the fact that Judge Mara struck those allegations as impertinent,
scandalous and completely irrelevant to the case cause you to
reassess scrolla excuse me? Is that intended to be a
direct quote? Simpson? Back up? What is your understanding of
Judge Mara's ruling with respect to these allegations about Professor
Dershowitz and Prince Andrew. Answer that they were premature. Question
that's your understanding of disorder? Answer? Yes, question, okay, answer,
and maybe I should see some skepticism there, so let
me explain why I think those allegations are appropriate. Question, Well,
we'll just pull the order itself. Answer sure, question at
the appropriate time. But first, your understanding is that the
judge didn't find that those allegations at the time that
they were made were so irrelevant to the case that
they should be stricken from the public record. Answer in
that pleading at the time, I remember we had our brief.
Let me explain the nine reasons why we thought that
those allegations were relevant to the case. Since I think
your question calls for that question, Are those the nine
reasons you gave yesterday? Answer? No, I didn't have a
chance to question. Are they the nine reasons that are
set forth in your brief? Answer? They are. They're the
nine reasons that are set forth in the brief. Question Okay,
And Judge Marra had that brief in front of them
when he held that these allegations were so not relevant
to the issues before the court that they would be
stricken and not part of the public record. Answer at
the time in that particular pleading, I think you're mischaracterizing
Judge Mara's ruling in its entirety. He specifically said that
the allegations could be reasserted if they were relevant to
issues that are that were coming up. And so in
following that ruling, we went to the US Attorney's Office,
propounded discovery requests and said, look, we believe you're sitting
on information that Dershowitz was, as you know, connected with
the criminal trafficking here. We would like you to produce
those documents. And rather than say, hey, we don't have
any such documents, the US Attorney's Office gave us the
response indicating to our view that there were such documents.
And as you know, since you're one of mister Dershowitz attorneys,
we have drafted a pleating now to try and collect
that information federal law enforcement agencies have collected and to
figure out the appropriate way to litigate that so that
we can get that information and move forward in the case.
That's just one example of how the allegations, if they
were premature at that point, are no longer going to
be premature as the case moves along. Question, is it
or is it not your understanding that Judge Marrow ruled
that the allegation in the pleading in front of you
were so irrelevant to the pleading in which they were
stated that they should be stricken from the public record.
Answer in that particular pleading at that particular time, that's right. Question,
does that cause you to reassess in any way having
filed this document? Answer? Well, I think certainly as a
tactical matter, we should have reserved the allegations for another motion.
I think that's you know, certainly. Now we are sort
of speculating would we have done something different if we
knew that? And the answer to that is sure, we
would have tried to do something that Judge Marra thought
was appropriate way to handle it. Question and Judge Marra
also a reminded counsel of their rule eleven obligations. Didn't
he answer? That's right? Yeah, question, And did it cause
you to question not tactics, but whether you were acting
properly in filing this SCROLLA? Excuse me, Simpson cuts them off.
I'm just asking if it caused him to reassess SCROLLA.
I understand what you're asking, and you're asking him about
his mental process in connection with pending litigation. That's work product.
I instruct you not to answer that question. Simpson. All right,
you testified yesterday that one reason you found the filing
of the complaint on behalf of Jane Doe one h two,
who is redacted by Bob Joseph Berg. And why that
was significant was that Bob Joseph Berg had been selected
by the United States Attorney of the Southern District of
Florida to represent victims correct answer, Yes, through the NPA. Yeah,
there was an apparatus that led to his selection. Question
and does that answer reflect holding the US Attorney for
the Southern District of Florida in that office in the
highest regard? Answer? Sure. Question do you contend at the
time the United States Attorney for the Southern District of
Florida negotiated the NPA, they knew that Professor Dershowitz himself
had been involved in abuse of miners. Answer. I don't
know exactly what information they had. I do know that
we had been propounding discovery requests on all of the subjects,
including Professor dershowitz involvement. When the US Attorney knew they
are asserting privilege over that, I would wish that they
would waive privilege or at least provide the information to
pro bono crime victims attorneys that they have so that
we can get to the bottom of this, but there
have been a NonStop series of assertions of privileges and
other barriers interposed against us in this case, and I
think inappropriately so so we have been arguing that now
for a number of years. Question, would you agree with
me that the United States Attorney's Office had been aware
Professor Dershowitz had engaged in sexual misconduct with miners or
himself observed mister Epstein do so, that it would have
been improper and unethical for them to let mister Professor
Dershowitz negotiate the terms of the NPA with them. Answer,
if they had direct knowledge of that, sure, I mean,
but the realities are a little bit more complicated. In
the Professor Dershowitz over the last couple of days has
frequently used the word continuum, and so if they they
are certain of that, it absolutely would have been unethical.
The question is, well, what if they had suspicion or
what if, you know, a reasonable suspicion or a possible suspicion.
Those are the kinds of dimensions that you've got to,
you know, take into account in the real world about
you know, what they what they would have done. I mean,
it seems pretty clear for example, that at some point,
you know, later on, they got a black book in
which Professor Dershowitz's name had been circled. Now, what they
did with that information, I don't know. Question, And what
they did with the fact that Courtney Love and Donald
Trump were circled, you don't know. Also correct answer. That's right,
fairpoint question, But somehow it's suspicious as to mister dershe
but not as to anyone else. Mister Scrolla, objection argumentative, Cassell,
I'm glad to argue on that point. Let me because
they Simpson, I'll withdraw the question casell all right, because
I would have had a substantial argument on that Simpson.
I always draw the question, Scrolla, and I always draw
the objection Simpson. Thank you, all right, folks. We're gonna
wrap up this episode right here, and in the next
episode dealing with the topic, we're gonna pick up where
we left off. All the information that goes with this
episode can be found in the description box.