EFTA00601154

141 
1 
Epstein used to travel from the airport to your home 
2 
on those occasions when you observed --
3 
A. 
I have no recollection. They were rented 
12:53:20 
4 
cars. 
5 
Q. 
Limousines? 
6 
A. 
Limousines, yeah, yeah. 
7 
Q. 
And did you ever travel from your home 
12:53:24 
12:53:24 
12:53:26 
8 
with Jeffrey Epstein in a limousine? 
9 
MR. SCOTT: Objection, form, overly broad. 
12:53:35 
10 
A. 
Not during the relevant time period, no, 
12:53:37 
11 
no. 
12 
BY MR. SCAROLA: 
12:53:41 
13 
Q. 
So, you can state with certainty, based 
12:53:43 
14 
upon your superb memory, that at no time between 
15 
1999 and 2002 did you ever travel from your home in 
16 
a limousine with Jeffrey Epstein? 
17 
A. 
I can't imagine any reason why I would 
12:54:03 
18 
have. I did not fly in his plane during that period 
19 
of time, my records establish. And I would see no 
20 
reason why I would have. I don't have any 
21 
recollection whether I specifically drove with him 
22 
during that period of time. But I think I did not. 
23 
Because I did not have any reason. 
24 
Normally if I drove with him, it would be 
12:54:25 
25 
to go to the airport to get on his plane. That was 
EFTA00601294

142 
1 
the only reason that I would have ever to go in a 
2 
limousine that I know of. 
3 
Q. 
What records establish that you were not 
12:54:37 
4 
on Jeffrey Epstein's plane during what you have 
5 
described as the relevant time period? 
6 
A. 
No, you've described it as the relevant 
12:54:46 
7 
time period. You said 2009 to 2000-
8 
Q. 
No, sir. In the answer you just -- 
12:54:51 
9 
A. 
-- 1999 -- 
12:54:52 
10 
Q. 
-- gave, you used the phrase "relevant 
12:54:53 
11 
time frame," time period. 
12 
A. 
Yeah, I was picking up on your terms 
12:54:54 
13 
between 1999 and 2002. So can we agree that's the 
14 
relevant time period? 
15 
Q. 
You can tell me what -- what your response 
12:55:03 
16 
is based on that you never traveled on Jeffrey 
17 
Epstein's airplane during the relevant time period, 
18 
whatever you consider that to be. 
19 
A. 
Okay. Number 1, my own calendars, which 
12:55:15 
20 
have been provided to you. Number 2, my cell phone 
21 
records. Number 3, my wife's calendars. Number 4, 
22 
my teaching and other schedule. 
23 
Number 5, my own recollection. And number 
12:55:33 
24 
6, as far as we know, the airplane manifests do not 
25 
have me on any airplanes during that time period. 
EFTA00601295

143 
1 
Q. 
What do you mean as far as -- 
12:55:49 
2 
MR. SCOTT: We can take a break at some 
12:55:50 
3 
point. It's about 1:00. 
4 
BY MR. SCAROLA: 
12:55:53 
5 
Q. 
What do you mean as far as you know, the 
12:55:54 
6 
airplane manifests 
7 
A. 
I've only seen some manifests and none of 
12:55:57 
8 
them have me on any airplane during the relevant 
9 
time period. I have no idea whether there are any 
10 
other manifests. I wouldn't know. 
11 
Q. 
Well, have you seen manifests from the 
12:56:07 
12 
period between 1999 and 2002? 
13 
A. 
I think I have, yes. I think I have, 
12:56:12 
14 
yeah 
15 
Q. 
Okay. The entire period, covers the whole 
12:56:14 
16 
period? 
17 
A. 
Yeah. I think I've been told by my 
12:56:17 
18 
lawyers --
19 
MR. SIMPSON: Don't -- 
12:56:20 
20 
A. 
Okay. I have been advised by people who 
12:56:21 
21 
have seen the records that there is -- that I was 
22 
not on any of Jeffrey Epstein's planes during that 
23 
period of time. And that comports with my -- with 
24 
my memory. 
25 
EFTA00601296

144 
1 
BY MR. SCAROLA: 
12:56:34 
2 
Q. 
Which people told you they saw airplane 
12:56:34 
3 
manifests for the period between 1999 and 2002? 
4 
MR. SCOTT: If that involves lawyer 
12:56:44 
5 
conversations and --
6 
A. 
It does involve lawyer conversations, yes. 
12:56:46 
7 
MR. SCAROLA: He just waived it. 
12:56:48 
8 
MR. SCOTT: I'm not taking that position. 
12:56:50 
9 
BY MR. SCAROLA: 
12:56:52 
10 
Q. 
Okay. So your position is that you are 
12:56:53 
11 
not disclosing --
12 
A. 
I'm happy to disclose -- 
12:56:54 
13 
Q. 
who told you 
12:56:56 
14 
A. 
I'm happy to disclose -- 
12:56:57 
15 
MR. SCOTT: No, no, I'm the lawyer here. 
12:57:00 
16 
I'm telling him not to answer that question. 
17 
I'll discuss it at the lunch break and I'll get 
18 
back to you. And I would also like to know 
19 
what the relevancy of all those questions were 
20 
about the house. 
21 
THE WITNESS: I can figure it out. 
12:57:10 
22 
BY MR. SCAROLA: 
12:57:15 
23 
Q. 
Who -- did you personally see airplane 
12:57:15 
24 
manifests during that period between 1999 and 2002? 
25 
A. 
My recollection is that I have looked at 
12:57:23 
EFTA00601297

145 
1 
plane manifests. I think they were prepared to be 
2 
shown to various people who I'm not allowed 
I'm 
3 
told not to talk about. 
4 
MR. SCAROLA: Okay. You've requested a 
12:57:41 
5 
break. 
6 
MR. SCOTT: Take a lunch. 
12:57:44 
7 
VIDEOGRAPHER: Going off the record. The 
12:57:44 
8 
time is approximately 12:57 p.m. 
9 
(Recess was from 12:57 p.m. until 3:43 p.m.) 
13:10:50 
10 
VIDEOGRAPHER: Going back on the record. 
13:35:41 
11 
The time is approximately 3:43 p.m. 
12 
BY MR. SCAROLA: 
15:43:41 
13 
Q. 
Mr. Dershowitz, did you author a book 
15:43:43 
14 
called My Life in Court? 
15 
A. 
No. 
15:43:47 
16 
Q. 
Do you recall having said the following: 
15:43:49 
17 
"There's an old saying if you have the law on your 
18 
side, bang on the law. If you have the facts on 
19 
your side, bang on the facts. If you have neither, 
20 
bang on the table. I have never believed that, but 
21 
I do believe in a variation of that theme. If you 
22 
don't have the law or legal facts on your side, 
23 
argue your case in the Court of public opinion"? 
24 
Did you say that those things? 
15:44:17 
25 
MR. SCOTT: Let me object to the form of 
15:44:19 
EFTA00601298

146 
1 
that because the statement does not give a 
2 
time, date, place or anything of his 
3 
recollections. 
4 
A. 
No, I remember saying that in following 
15:44:25 
5 
context, I was accused of an unspeakable heinous 
6 
crime by lawyers who deliberately put it in a court 
7 
pleading that they believe would give them immunity. 
8 
They put it in a pleading which I was not a party. 
9 
I had no realistic legal opportunity to respond to 
10 
the lies and in that context, my only alternative 
11 
was to respond to the media when the media called 
12 
me, because obviously the media had been alerted to 
13 
these lies that were inserted in a judicial 
14 
proceeding, and I had no alternative but to respond 
15 
in the court of public opinion. 
16 
I prefer to respond in courts of law. In 
15:45:16 
17 
fact, I've had cases in my career, including a 
18 
double capital case, where I made a deal with the 
19 
prosecutor initially that I would never speak to the 
20 
press if he would never speak to the press and we 
21 
honored that deal even when I won the case and my 
22 
clients were taken off death row. 
23 
So my strong preference would be to 
15:45:34 
24 
respond in the court of law where I think I have 
25 
abilities and talents to respond. But when I have 
EFTA00601299

147 
1 
no alternative because of the way in which the 
2 
lawyers put the false allegations in a judicial 
3 
pleading hoping to get judicial immunity, yes, at 
4 
that point the appropriate response is in the court 
5 
of public opinion. 
6 
That's what Justice Blackmun said in a 
15:46:00 
7 
concurring opinion in the Supreme Court, that the 
8 
duty of a lawyer does not stop at the courtroom door 
9 
but it continues on to the courtroom steps. And my 
10 
attitude is you fight the battle wherever the other 
11 
side starts it. 
12 
So, if the battles are started in the 
15:46:16 
13 
court of public opinion, I have an obligation to 
14 
continue it in the court of public opinion. 
15 
MR. SCAROLA: Move to strike the 
15:46:25 
16 
unresponsive answer. Let me try again and I'll 
17 
make it a little simpler for you. 
18 
BY MR. SCAROLA: 
19 
Q. 
Did you say if you don't have the law or 
15:46:31 
20 
legal facts on your side, argue your case in the 
21 
court of public opinion? 
22 
A. 
I said that in the context of an 
15:46:39 
23 
ability -- an inability to respond in the court of 
24 
law. In this case, I think I have -- I know I have 
25 
the facts on my side. In this case, it was unclear 
EFTA00601300

148 
1 
whether I had the law on my side at that time when 
2 
I, of course, learned that Professor Cassell made a 
3 
statement to ABC News that was not privileged and 
4 
when I also learned about statements made by both 
5 
Cassell and Edwards, I realized at that point I had 
6 
the law on my side, the facts on my side, and 
7 
morality. And that's the most important thing to 
8 
me, morality on my side. 
9 
BY MR. SCAROLA: 
15:47:22 
10 
Q. 
You are quoted in an April 2007 edition of 
15:47:24 
11 
the Daily Mail as having said "The financier," 
12 
referring to Jeffrey Epstein, "had paid for massages 
13 
but had not engaged in sex or erotic massages with 
14 
any minors." 
15 
Did you make that statement? 
15:47:53 
16 
A. 
Can you show me? 
15:47:54 
17 
MR. SCOTT: Would you like to see the 
15:47:56 
18 
article? 
19 
THE WITNESS: Yes, of course I would. 
15:47:58 
20 
MR. SCOTT: Can he see it, please? 
15:48:04 
21 
BY MR. SCAROLA: 
15:48:05 
22 
Q. 
Does that help to refresh your superb 
15:48:06 
23 
memory? 
24 
MR. SCOTT: Objection. No -- he asked to 
15:48:09 
25 
see it. There's no question pending. He's 
EFTA00601301

149 
1 
reviewing the document. 
2 
A. 
I have no recollection of having made that 
15:48:16 
3 
statement, nor do I know whether it's an accurate 
4 
rendition. I note that it's not in quotation marks. 
5 
BY MR. SCAROLA: 
15:48:24 
6 
Q. 
So you can't remember one way or another 
15:48:25 
7 
whether you said that; is that correct? 
8 
A. 
I can't remember my exact words. I was 
15:48:28 
9 
I was defending Jeffrey Epstein both in the court of 
10 
law and in the court of public opinion. 
11 
Q. 
So, as far as Jeffrey Epstein was 
15:48:37 
12 
concerned, you decided to resort to the court of 
13 
public opinion --
14 
A. 
Because -- 
15:48:45 
15 
Q. 
-- correct? 
15:48:45 
16 
A. 
Because the press had called me because 
15:48:46 
17 
Epstein's opponents had gone to the press and tried 
18 
to make the case against him in the press. As I 
19 
said previously, and I've stated this over and over 
20 
again, I will fight for my client in any forum in 
21 
which the fight is commenced by the other side. If 
22 
the fight is limited to the court, I much prefer to 
23 
fight in the court. 
24 
No defendant benefits from having his case 
15:49:09 
25 
in the newspapers. Every defendant I know and every 
EFTA00601302

150 
1 
defense lawyer I know, and I certainly teach this to 
2 
my students, try to keep the case out of the press, 
3 
try to keep the press as far away from the case as 
4 
possible. But if the press is covering the opposing 
5 
point of view, you have an obligation to respond in 
6 
whatever forum the -- the prosecution of your 
7 
clients or the persecution of your clients is taking 
8 
place. That's been a principle that I've applied 
9 
throughout my professional career. 
10 
Q. 
And you have an obligation to respond 
15:49:42 
11 
truthfully when you make public statements? 
12 
A. 
Absolutely, right. 
15:49:47 
13 
Q. 
The Code of Professional Responsibility of 
15:49:48 
14 
the Bar of the State of Massachusetts requires you 
15 
to be truthful in making statements to third 
16 
parties, correct? 
17 
A. 
I'm fully aware of the Code of 
15:49:58 
18 
Professional Responsibility. I've always complied 
19 
with it. I've never violated it, and I wish I could 
20 
say the same for your clients, but I can't. 
21 
Q. 
As you sit here today, knowing that more 
15:50:07 
22 
than 30 underage women have come forward to report 
23 
that your friend, Jeffrey Epstein, paid them for sex 
24 
and that he pled guilty to procuring underage girls 
25 
for prostitution, and that he paid very large sums 
EFTA00601303

151 
1 
of money to settle their civil claims against him, 
2 
do you still insist that he had not engaged in sex 
3 
or erotic massages with any minors? 
4 
A. 
As I told you 
15:50:45 
5 
MR. WEINBERG: I would like to register an 
15:50:46 
6 
objection --
7 
MR. SCOTT: Wait a minute. 
15:50:46 
8 
MR. WEINBERG: -- to the extent that your 
15:50:46 
9 
opinion --
10 
THE COURT REPORTER: I'm sorry, I can't 
15:50:46 
11 
hear the gentleman. 
12 
MR. SCAROLA: We're going to -- we're 
15:50:52 
13 
going to object to more than one lawyer --
14 
MR. SCOTT: He's representing Epstein, 
15:50:57 
15 
just like she represents Boies. 
16 
MR. SCAROLA: That's fine. 
15:51:01 
17 
MR. SCOTT: This is -- this is Epstein's 
15:51:02 
18 
lawyer. And they have attorney-client relation 
19 
there, so --
20 
MR. SCAROLA: Yeah, is there some 
15:51:12 
21 
volume --
22 
THE WITNESS: Go ahead, Marty. 
15:51:13 
23 
MR. WEINBERG: The -- the objection is to 
15:51:16 
24 
the extent the question requires you to rely on 
25 
information you learned as a result of your 
EFTA00601304

152 
1 
attorney-client communications, representation 
2 
of Epstein, work product, I object. 
3 
BY MR. SCAROLA: 
15:51:31 
4 
Q. 
Do you understand the question? 
15:51:32 
5 
A. 
I understand the question and I understand 
15:51:33 
6 
the objection. 
7 
Q. 
Yes, sir. And are you going to answer the 
15:51:36 
8 
question? 
9 
THE WITNESS: Marty, you're the lawyer for 
15:51:38 
10 
my client. Do you -- do you order me to answer 
11 
the question or not? 
12 
MR. WEINBERG: The client does not waive 
15:51:46 
13 
any of the privileges; and, again, to the 
14 
extent you're required to rely on what you 
15 
learned as a result of your professional legal 
16 
relationship with Epstein, your representation 
17 
of him in any of -- any of his legal cases, I 
18 
object and would instruct you to the extent you 
19 
will accept an instruction from your client's 
20 
lawyer not to answer. 
21 
BY MR. SCAROLA: 
15:52:11 
22 
Q. 
Mr. Dershowitz, you know -- I assume 
15:52:12 
23 
you're going to follow the instruction, correct? 
24 
MR. SCOTT: Yes, you're going to follow 
15:52:15 
25 
the instruction. 
EFTA00601305

153 
1 
A. 
I am going to follow the instruction. I 
15:52:16 
2 
have no choice. He's my client. 
3 
BY MR. SCAROLA: 
15:52:19 
4 
Q. 
I assume you know from sources entirely 
15:52:20 
5 
independent of anything that Jeffrey Epstein told 
6 
you, from sources entirely independent of attorney 
7 
work product privileged information, that Jeffrey 
8 
Epstein is guilty of being a serial child molester, 
9 
right? 
10 
A. 
Absolutely not. Absolutely not. 
15:52:37 
11 
Q. 
You don't know independent of those 
15:52:39 
12 
sources? 
13 
A. 
Not only -- no, I don't know that 
15:52:41 
14 
independent --
15 
Q. 
Okay. Thank you. 
15:52:43 
16 
A. 
-- of those sources. Of course not. 
15:52:43 
17 
Q. 
You know that he pled guilty to sexual 
15:52:45 
18 
abuse of minors, correct? 
19 
A. 
Could you tell me exactly what he pleaded 
15:52:54 
20 
guilty to so I can answer that question? 
21 
Q. 
Well, do you know? You represented him 
15:52:58 
22 
during the period of time that he was under -- that 
23 
he was -- that he was under criminal charges, didn't 
24 
you? 
25 
MR. SCOTT: So you're withdrawing the 
15:53:06 
EFTA00601306

154 
1 
prior question; you're now asking this 
2 
question? Okay. 
3 
MR. SCAROLA: That's correct, I'm 
15:53:09 
4 
asking --
5 
A. 
So I represented him 
15:53:10 
6 
MR. SCAROLA: -- this question. 
15:53:10 
7 
A. 
I represented him first in Palm Beach 
15:53:11 
8 
County, and at that point, he had been prepared to 
9 
plead guilty to, I think, one count --
10 
MR. WEINBERG: Alan, I'm sorry. This is 
15:53:24 
11 
again, going right into the work that you did 
12 
for him as his lawyer and I instruct you not to 
13 
answer. 
14 
MR. SCOTT: That's it then, follow his -- 
15:53:32 
15 
as your attorney, I'm telling you to follow the 
16 
lawyer's advice. 
17 
THE WITNESS: Uh-huh. 
15:53:36 
18 
BY MR. SCAROLA: 
15:53:37 
19 
Q. 
You are aware that on October 20, 2005, 
15:53:37 
20 
the Palm Beach police department executed a search 
21 
warrant on Jeffrey Epstein's Palm Beach mansion, 
22 
correct? 
23 
A. 
I'm not aware of that, no. 
15:53:45 
24 
Q. 
You didn't know that? 
15:53:46 
25 
A. 
I don't know that as I stand here today 
15:53:48 
EFTA00601307

155 
1 
what date or when --
2 
Q. 
Do you know that a search warrant was 
15:53:52 
3 
executed? 
4 
A. 
I recall -- 
15:53:54 
5 
MR. WEINBERG: Again, the objection is if 
15:53:55 
6 
you only know it as a result of your legal 
7 
representation of Mr. Epstein, I object to your 
8 
answering on that basis. If you know it from 
9 
independent sources, then I have no objection. 
10 
A. 
I do not know it from independent sources. 
15:54:08 
11 
BY MR. SCAROLA: 
15:54:10 
12 
Q. 
You know it from having read a very 
15:54:11 
13 
lengthy Palm Beach police department investigative 
14 
report, don't you? 
15 
MR. SCOTT: Objection. 
15:54:19 
16 
MR. WEINBERG: And I object 
If you read 
15:54:20 
17 
it in the context of providing legal 
18 
representation to Jeffrey Epstein, it's 
19 
attorney-client, it's work product, and it's 
20 
the same objection. 
21 
THE WITNESS: Let me put on the record, 
15:54:31 
22 
too, that I'm happy to answer any of these 
23 
questions if I were permitted to do so because 
24 
they're all exculpatory of me, but I must obey 
25 
my lawyer -- the lawyer's instructions. 
EFTA00601308

156 
1 
MR. SCAROLA: And it is my suggestion that 
15:54:43 
2 
the statement that the answers would be 
3 
exculpatory is a waiver of any privilege that 
4 
might attach, particularly with regard to work 
5 
product, which is not Jeffrey Epstein's 
6 
privilege, but if it exists at all, is Alan 
7 
Dershowitz's privilege. 
8 
MR. SCOTT: We obviously don't agree with 
15:55:01 
9 
that. 
10 
BY MR. SCAROLA: 
15:55:03 
11 
Q. 
Do you agree, Mr. Dershowitz, that 
15:55:04 
12 
deciding the issues in this case will depend on 
13 
evaluating not only 
credibility 
14 
but your credibility as well? 
15 
MR. SCOTT: Objection, legal conclusion, 
15:55:14 
16 
not relevant here. 
17 
A. 
I think that I can prove my complete 
15:55:17 
18 
innocence and the fact that -- that 
19 
made up the story out of whole cloth without my 
20 
credibility being at issue, but I'm perfectly happy 
21 
to put my credibility at issue because I am telling 
22 
the blue absolute truth about everything regarding 
23 
• 
24 
BY MR. SCAROLA: 
15:55:39 
25 
Q. 
One way to evaluate credibility is to 
15:55:40 
EFTA00601309

157 
1 
compare an individual's statements with available 
2 
documentary evidence, correct? 
3 
A. 
That's too broad a question. Depending on 
15:55:48 
4 
what the documentary evidence could be. Documentary 
5 
could be lies. Documents contain lies and oral 
6 
statements contain truth. So, no, I don't think 
7 
that's a particularly good way. It depends on the 
8 
nature of the document. 
9 
For example, videotape would be very good. 
15:56:04 
10 
If you had a videotape that in some way supported 
11 
' statements and it undercut what I 
12 
said, that would be fine. That's why from day one 
13 
I've asked to have if there are any videotape shown 
14 
or any photographs because I know what happened. I 
15 
know that I never had any contact, any sexual 
16 
contact, any improper contact with
17 
And I know, therefore, that there cannot 
15:56:27 
18 
be any evidence that contradicts that because you 
19 
can't simply make up facts. So I am telling you the 
20 
absolute truth. 
21 
Q. 
You also know that all of the videotapes 
15:56:37 
22 
that were taken through surveillance cameras 
23 
throughout Jeffrey Epstein's home were destroyed, 
24 
don't you? 
25 
A. 
Of course I don't know that. 
15:56:47 
EFTA00601310

158 
1 
Q. 
You don't know? 
15:56:48 
2 
A. 
Of course not. 
15:56:49 
3 
Q. 
So you didn't read the police reports 
15:56:50 
4 
then? 
5 
MR. SCOTT: Objection. Mr. Epstein, do 
15:56:52 
6 
you want him to answer that question? 
7 
MR. SIMPSON: Mr. Weinberg. 
15:56:59 
8 
MR. SCOTT: Mr. Weinberg? 
15:57:00 
9 
MR. WEINBERG: It's the same objection. 
15:57:00 
10 
If you learned it as a result of the -- or in 
11 
the context of legal representation and while 
12 
providing legal counsel to Jeffrey Epstein, I 
13 
object. 
14 
MR. SCOTT: Based on this lawyer's 
15:57:12 
15 
position, your client's lawyer's position, if 
16 
any of your answers involve that what he's 
17 
saying, I don't want you to answer them, okay? 
18 
THE WITNESS: The only thing I can say 
15:57:21 
19 
that doesn't --
20 
MR. SIMPSON: Alan -- 
15:57:23 
21 
MR. SCOTT: There's no question. 
15:57:23 
22 
A. 
That doesn't involve. 
15:57:24 
23 
MR. SCOTT: There's no question. 
15:57:25 
24 
THE WITNESS: Oh, there's no question. 
15:57:26 
25 
Sorry. 
EFTA00601311

159 
1 
BY MR. SCAROLA: 
15:57:28 
2 
Q. 
You have stated publicly repeatedly that 
15:57:29 
3 
the airplane manifests will exonerate you, correct? 
4 
A. 
I have stated publicly that the airplane 
15:57:35 
5 
manifest, the one that I have seen, do not show me 
6 
on any of Jeffrey Epstein's airplanes in the 
7 
relevant period of time, which I define as the 
8 
summer of 1999 through the summer of 2002, number 1. 
9 
Number 2, that none of the airplane 
15:57:52 
10 
manifests will show me on the same plane with 
11 
• 
12 
And 3, that none of the manifests will 
15:58:01 
13 
show me on an airplane with Jeffrey Epstein and any 
14 
underage girls that were at least visible in the 
15 
passenger part of the airplane. 
16 
Q. 
Well, that raises an interesting point, 
15:58:13 
17 
Mr. Dershowitz. Tell us about the interior --
18 
A. 
Why is it interesting? 
15:58:16 
19 
Q. 
-- of that plane. 
15:58:18 
20 
THE COURT REPORTER: I'm sorry, I didn't 
15:58:18 
21 
hear your question. 
22 
BY MR. SCAROLA: 
15:58:18 
23 
Q. 
That raises an interesting point. Tell us 
15:58:20 
24 
about that the interior of that plane. 
25 
A. 
My recollection is the plane was a 
15:58:24 
EFTA00601312

160 
1 
Gulfstream IV. That it had a cabin that seated 
2 
approximately one, two, three, four -- maybe ten --
3 
ten people. It had mostly seats -- I used to sit in 
4 
the seat facing backward, that's the way I prefer to 
5 
fly. 
6 
And in the back of the plane there was a 
15:58:52 
7 
toilet, a place to serve food. And a couch that 
8 
served as a seat with seat belts for maybe two or 
9 
three additional people. But I never saw the 
10 
plane -- the only time I ever saw the plane filled 
11 
to capacity was when I went down to watch a launch 
12 
of a satellite --
13 
Q. 
Does that have -- 
15:59:19 
14 
A. 
-- to outer space. 
15:59:20 
15 
Q. 
anything to do with the configuration 
15:59:20 
16 
of the interior of the plane? 
17 
A. 
Yes. Yes, I'm telling you that I've 
15:59:25 
18 
mostly seen it only with four or five people. The 
19 
only time I've seen the couch 
20 
Q. 
Did I ask you how many people 
15:59:29 
21 
MR. SCOTT: Well, you're interrupting -- 
15:59:30 
22 
BY MR. SCAROLA: 
15:59:31 
23 
Q. 
-- were in the plane at the time I asked 
15:59:32 
24 
you what the configuration of the cabin was, 
25 
Mr. Dershowitz? 
EFTA00601313