EFTA01137794

Page 562 
1 
Q. 
Hypothetically, if you had made those 
2 statements, those statements would be false, 
3 correct? 
4 
MR. SCOTT: Objection. Hypothetical --
5 
we're not even talking -- we have no knowledge 
6 
of who this woman is. 
7 
SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: I'm going to 
8 
grant the objection. Move on. Rephrase the 
9 
question. 
10 
BY MR. EDWARDS: 
11  
Q. 
Sure.  If we, as the attorneys for 
12 
, were weighing her credibility 
13 against whether or not to make a phone call, and 
14 your credibility, those are statements that we 
15 should take into account along with the evidence 
16 that we have before us, wouldn't you agree? 
17 
A. 
Were you aware of those statements at the 
18 time? 
19 
Q. 
This is not my deposition. 
20 
A. 
I understand that, but you're giving a 
21 hypothetical and I'm giving a hypothetical answer. 
22 One would have to know whether or not the lawyers 
23 who should have called me knew about the statement. 
24 
Q. 
In this hypothetical, suppose that we were 
25 aware of every one of your public statements that 
EFTA01137894

Page 563 
1 
you have ever made on this case of this subject 
2 matter as well as related subject matter whatsoever 
3 at the time. 
4 
A. 
You would find that I was a truth-telling 
5 person who never has ever deliberately stated an 
6 untruth in my professional life. 
7 
Q. 
We're going to get through this --
8 
SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: Go ahead and ask 
9 
the question now based on that hypothetical you 
10 
just laid out. 
11 
BY MR. EDWARDS: 
12 
Q. 
If we hypothetically assumed that you had 
13 made these statements, would these statements, given 
14 your knowledge of the facts of this case, be false? 
15 
A. 
Let me see the statements again, please. 
16 
MR. INDYKE: Objection. To the extent the 
17 
knowledge of the facts of this case derive from 
18 
Mr. Dershowitz's representation of Mr. Epstein, 
19 
I don't think he can answer that question 
20 
without violating the privilege. 
21 
SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: Hang on one 
22 
second. Did we hop over the hypothetical to 
23 
reality? 
24 
MR. INDYKE: I think we may have. 
25 
SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: That's my 
EFTA01137895

Page 564 
1 
question to you. 
2 
MR. EDWARDS: We're still operating in 
3 
hypothetical. 
4 
SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: So now go back 
5 
and describe your hypothetical specifically so 
6 
he understand the question that you are asking. 
7 
A. 
Is this hypothetical still? 
8 
BY MR. EDWARDS: 
9 
Q. 
Yes. Hypothetically, if the attorneys 
10 were aware of these statements that you're looking 
11 at as well as the remainder of statements that you 
12 have made on this topic and this case, in assessing 
13 whether or not to just call you and assessing your 
14 credibility versus 
credibility, 
15 wouldn't you agree that those statements are things 
16 that we should take into consideration? 
17 
MR. SCOTT: Objection, compound, 
18 
argumentative, and, frankly, I don't even 
19 
understand the question. 
20 
SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: If you 
21 
understand it, you can answer. 
22 
A. 
I can understand it. What I would have 
23 done as a responsible lawyer, what you should have 
24 done, is you should have called me and asked me 
25 about these statements, and I might have told you I 
EFTA01137896

Page 565 
1 
said them, I might have told you I didn't say them, 
2 I would have to have checked. 
3 
Going through each of the statements, he 
4 said that the girl who accused Epstein of forcible 
5 sex had a long record of lying, theft and blaming 
6 others for her crimes. I don't know who that person 
7 is, who the young woman is. It may very well, based 
8 on what I knew from --
9 
MR. INDYKE: Objection if you're talking 
10 
about actual facts. 
11 
SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: He's answering a 
12 
hypothetical, so it's within -- move forward on 
13 
the hypothetical basis only. 
14 
A. 
Hypothetically, these facts may very well 
15 be true that she had a long record of lying, theft 
16 and blaming others. 
17 
It says that I said that he had passed a 
18 lie detector test. I don't recall that. I don't 
19 recall that he took a lie detector test. But if he 
20 had taken a lie detector test and I was told he 
21 passed it, that statement would be true. 
22 
If I had been told hypothetically that he 
23 had paid for massages and had not engaged in 
24 massages with underage minors, at that point in time 
25 in 1907 [sic], that statement would be true. But as 
EFTA01137897

Page 566 
1 
a lawyer, I wouldn't necessarily, A, take the word 
2 of the Daily Mail without calling or, B, assume that 
3 the statements quoted in the Daily Mail were false. 
4 
BY MR. EDWARDS: 
5 
Q. 
Would you agree it is a fair assumption or 
6 a fair presumption that when you are making public 
7 statements on behalf of the client, that you have at 
8 least reviewed the available evidence that may exist 
9 against that client? 
10 
A. 
That's too broad a question. It really 
11 depends. I mean, i get called on day one of a case, 
12 I don't know the evidence, and I'm called by the 
13 press. I talk about my client being presumed 
14 innocent, my client being innocent. That's part of 
15 the role of a criminal defense lawyer. Justice 
16 Blackmun has said that the criminal defense lawyer's 
17 role does not end in a courtroom, it continues to 
18 the courthouse steps. 
19 
And so when my client is being accused of 
20 something, I have the right to --
21 
MR. SCAROLA: Excuse me one moment. Rick, 
22 
could you step outside with me. 
23 
A. 
-- to express my clients' views on the 
24 matter. I'm speaking in a representative capacity. 
25 
EFTA01137898

Page 567 
1 
BY MR. EDWARDS: 
2 
Q. 
Can we now remove ourselves from that 
3 hypothetical and go to the allegations in this 
4 Complaint, which include the various allegations 
5 made in the statements at the beginning of this 
6 deposition? 
7 
A. 
Which Complaint are we talking about? 
8 
Q. 
The defamation Complaint. 
9 
MR. SCOTT: The one in this case? 
10 
MR. EDWARDS: Yes, yes. 
11 
BY MR. EDWARDS: 
12 
Q. 
Is it -- is it a fair presumption on the 
13 part of myself and Mr. Cassell that at the time the 
14 statement was made by you in April of 2007 
15 indicating the things that we have just gone over, 
16 that you had in your possession, at the very least, 
17 the evidence that was publicly available, including 
18 the police reports? 
19 
MR. INDYKE: Same objection and same 
20 
instruction. 
21 
THE WITNESS: Your Honor? 
22 
SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: Well, can you --
23 
can you answer outside the scope? 
24 
THE WITNESS: I don't think so, based on a 
25 
combination of factors, including material that 
EFTA01137899

Page 568 
1 
I got in a lawyer-client and work product 
2 
fashion. 
3 
BY MR. EDWARDS: 
4 
Q. 
Okay. Let's take it a different way. One 
5 of the things you said we should have done is just 
6 called you. 
7 
A. 
That's right. 
8 
Q. 
If we had called you, isn't it more 
9 likely, based on what we've seen today, that what we 
10 would have had is just a bunch of objections and you 
11 
not being able to tell us anything? 
12 
A. 
Absolutely not. 
13 
MR. SCOTT: Objection --
14 
A. 
This requires a long answer because you've 
15 asked me what you would have found out had you 
16 called me. So let me tell you what you would have 
17 found out. 
18 
MR. SCOTT: Do you want a long answer? 
19 
BY MR. EDWARDS: 
20 
Q. 
I don't want a long answer. I'm asking 
21 wouldn't Jeffrey Epstein have had a say in what you 
22 tell us, the same way that he has a say apparently 
23 today in what you're telling us? 
24 
A. 
No. When it comes to me defending myself, 
25 I will make the ultimate decision as to -- I'm an 
EFTA01137900

Page 569 
1 expert on lawyer-client privilege. I'm an expert on 
2 work product. I'm an expert on the exceptions. I 
3 can tell you exactly what I would have told you. 
4 
What I would have told you was that I have 
5 documentation that could prove categorically that I 
6 could not have been on Jeffrey Epstein's island 
7 during the three-year period that is relevant. 
8 
I can prove categorically that I could not 
9 have had sex or any contact with her at the ranch. 
10 I can prove categorically that I couldn't have had 
11 sexual contact with her on the airplane. I can 
12 prove categorically that I couldn't have had sexual 
13 contact with her in Palm Beach. And that I could 
14 not prove categorically that at least I wasn't in 
15 the same city with her in New York because I was in 
16 New York for a long period of time. 
17 
I would have told you what that 
18 documentation was. I would have asked you for an 
19 opportunity to produce the documentation. I would 
20 have provided you with other information. 
21 
No, I would not have raised any privilege. 
22 I would have told you exactly what the evidence is, 
23 and you would have believed me and you would have 
24 not made these allegations if you're a responsible 
25 lawyer. 
EFTA01137901

Page 570 
1 
Q. 
Is this the documentation that you have 
2 now produced in this litigation, the documentation 
3 you're talking about? 
4 
A. 
Yes. 
5 
Q. 
That's the documentation that you believe 
6 completely exonerates you of everything? 
7 
A. 
What I've said is the documentation proves 
8 conclusively that I could not have been on the 
9 island. It proves conclusively that I could not 
10 have had any sexual contact with her on the ranch. 
11 And the same thing is true for Palm Beach and for 
12 the airplane. 
13 
I've said right from the beginning that 
14 and that if she's lying about four of the five 
15 locations, she certainly can't be believed about 
16 New York. And that is my evidence, and that's what 
17 I would have told you about. 
18 
Q. 
One piece of that information would be to 
19 have in our possession all of the flight manifests 
20 from all of the airplanes that were under Jeffrey 
21 Epstein's control and the helicopter manifest. 
22 Wouldn't you agree? 
23 
A. 
I would love to have you have all the 
24 documentation, every manifest, every single moment 
25 of the life of her and my life, and to the extent 
EFTA01137902

Page 571 
1 
2 
3 
anything is missing, I regret it much more than you 
do because I am positive that they would provide 
exculpatory information. 
4 
Q. 
The same way --
5 
A. 
I'm hoping that you can find it. Please 
6 go ahead with my blessing. Please go find it. 
7 
MR. INDYKE: Objection. In connection 
8 
with Mr. Dershowitz's response, Mr. Epstein 
9 
waives no such objections that he's raised. 
10 
He's not waiving privilege. He's not waiving 
11 
work product. He's not waiving 
12 
attorney-client, common interest, joint 
13 
defense. 
14 
SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: I've got it. 
15 
Move forward. 
16 
BY MR. EDWARDS: 
17 
Q. 
The same way that you have looked at 
18 
newspaper articles to make the allegation that 
19 
is a liar, don't you agree that it 
20 is also acceptable for Mr. Cassell and I or any 
21 attorneys representing 
to take into 
22 account the statements that you publicly made in 
23 2007 in juxtaposition with the evidence that was 
24 available to you at the time you made those 
25 
statements? 
EFTA01137903

Page 572 
1 
A. 
First of all, I did not rely on --
2 
MR. INDYKE: To the extent that your 
3 
response requires you to invade privilege, I 
4 
would instruct you not to respond. 
5 
A. 
I did not rely on newspaper accounts. I'm 
6 relying on my own 100 percent personal knowledge. 
7 I'm relying on the evidence provided by Tom Ashe and 
8 Joanne Ashe, relying on the evidence provided by the 
9 Porters, relying on all kinds of documentation, 
10 relying on her history of having been disbelieved by 
11 the State Attorney, on the history of having been 
12 arrested and fired from her job for stealing, on her 
13 outlandish claims from her -- let me just read this, 
14 from her affidavit -- I have to take just one 
15 second, please. Just give me one second. 
16 
BY MR. EDWARDS: 
17 
Q. 
Is this related to answering my question? 
18 
A. 
Yes, it is very directly. 
19 
SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: What you're 
20 
looking at there is related? 
21 
A. 
Yes. Her statement -- here's what I would 
22 look at. 
23 
MR. EDWARDS: Can we attach this to the 
24 
deposition that he's reviewing this? 
25 
SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: Yeah, yeah. 
EFTA01137904

Page 573 
1 
A. 
I am simply quoting from her affidavit. 
2 
SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: Who "her"? 
3 
A. 
That's what I looked 
4 at, her affidavit, which says that --
5 
SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: Hang on one 
6 
second. Tom, before he quotes, let's 
7 
understand, I do think we need a copy of that 
8 
now. 
9 
THE WITNESS: It's in the affidavit. 
10 
SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: But I do think 
11 
in fairness to these guys, I think that what 
12 
you're reading from, they need to have it. 
13 
A. 
I won't read from it. In her affidavit, 
14 she states that she had sex with Presidents, plural, 
15 of countries, a well-known prime minister of a 
16 country, prominent American politicians, prominent 
17 American businessmen, academics, and more. 
18 
And when I read that and read other 
19 information about what she was reported to have 
20 said, that's not from newspapers, that's from her 
21 own affidavit. 
22 
BY MR. EDWARDS: 
23 
Q. 
Some of your leading statements to the 
24 various audiences that we went over earlier were 
25 that she apparently says she had sex with Stephen 
EFTA01137905

Page 574 
1 
2 Clinton. 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
Hawking, and that she was on an orgy with Bill 
Don't those statements come only and 
directly, if at all, out of some newspaper 
publishing, those ones that I just referred to? 
A. 
Those two statements came from newspapers 
and blogs. But I did not rely on those alone. 
MR. SCOTT: You've been quoting from 
newspapers all along, and now you have a 
problem with a newspaper? 
MR. EDWARDS: I don't have a problem with 
a newspaper. 
SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: Wait a second. 
Move on. You don't need to respond. 
BY MR. EDWARDS: 
Q. 
Isn't it 
credibility versus 
this subject for Paul Cassell or myself or any of 
the attorneys over here to take your public 
statement that you made in April of 2007 in 
juxtaposition with the evidence that was available 
to you in determining your credibility on this 
topic? Isn't that a fair thing to do? 
A 
Number one, it is not fair to ever believe 
fair when assessing your 
credibility on 
25 what is said in the Daily Mail without checking. 
EFTA01137906

Page 575 
1 
That's a tabloid newspaper that's notorious for its 
2 inaccuracies. 
3 
Number two, if you look at the statements, 
4 they don't even identify who the person is and 
5 there's no -- nothing on the face of the record of 
6 this newspaper that would show that it wasn't true 
7 that she had a long record of lying, theft and 
8 blaming others for her crimes. 
9 
If I said it, I'm sure it was true. If I 
10 said he passed a lie detector test, I'm sure it was 
11 true. And if I made any other statements, it was on 
12 the basis of a review of the evidence that I had 
13 available to me at the time, including statements 
14 made to me by my client, which I'm not free to 
15 disclose. And lawyers make statements on behalf of 
16 their clients. 
17 
Q. 
But by throwing that last piece in there 
18 that it's also on the basis of conversations you've 
19 had with your client, it implies that those 
20 conversations somehow justified those statements. 
21 And if that's what you're sticking to, I want to 
22 understand what it is that you learned from him that 
23 could possibly justify those public statements in 
24 2007. 
25 
MR. INDYKE: Same objection, same 
EFTA01137907

Page 576 
1 
instruction. 
2 
A. 
What I'm saying is that lawyers, 
3 particularly criminal defense lawyers, whether in 
4 court or out of court -- I don't know whether these 
5 statements were made in court of out of court -- are 
6 entitled to assert the innocence of their clients. 
7 
That's what lawyers do all the time. I'm 
8 sure you've done it. I'm sure Professor Cassell has 
9 done it. I'm sure Mr. Scarola has done it. And 
10 none of us ever want to be judged on our credibility 
11 by pleading a client nonguilty or asserting a 
12 client's innocence, and then it turns out perhaps 
13 later that the client -- I'm not suggesting that 
14 that happened here, but that the evidence 
15 contradicts it. 
16 
First of all, we don't know what the 
17 evidence is we're talking about here because we're 
18 dealing with a timeframe that's very, very different 
19 from the timeframe that ultimately was available 
20 later on in the case. 
21 
BY MR. EDWARDS: 
22 
Q. 
Let me ask it to you this way, then: 
23 First let me ask, is 
a Massachusetts rule of 
24 professional conduct on truthfulness in statements, 
25 are you familiar with that rule? 
EFTA01137908

Page 577 
1 
A. 
Yes 
2 
Q. 
And doesn't it indicate that in the course 
3 of representing a client, a lawyer shall not 
4 knowingly make a false statement of material fact or 
5 law to a third person? 
6 
A. 
And I've never done anything that even 
7 comes close to violating that rule. 
8 
Q. 
Okay. So let's take the statement, the 
9 public statement that we are discussing from the 
10 Daily Mail April 2007 article. 
11 
A. 
Right. 
12 
Q. 
The statement that the financier had paid 
13 for massages, but had not engaged in sex or erotic 
14 massages with any minors, do you, as you sit here 
15 today, believe that statement to have been true at 
16 the time that you made it? 
17 
A. 
Absolutely. 
18 
MR. INDYKE: Same objection, same 
19 
instruction. 
20 
BY MR. EDWARDS: 
21 
Q. 
The 87-page police report that has already 
22 been marked to this deposition was generated in 2005 
23 and 2006 prior to that statement that you made; is 
24 that right? 
25 
A. 
I have no idea. Let me qualify my answer. 
EFTA01137909

Page 578 
1 
I don't recall having used those words. I don't 
2 recall an interview with the Daily Mail. My current 
3 recollection is I did not have an interview with the 
4 Daily Mail. 
5 
Had I had an interview with the Daily 
6 Mail, it would have had to have been authorized by 
7 my client. I don't think he would have authorized 
8 such an interview, so I am now not acknowledging --
9 I just don't know, but I am not acknowledging that I 
10 actually said those words to the Daily Mail. You 
11 are going to have to demonstrate that. I don't 
12 remember speaking to Ms. Churchhill or whatever her 
13 name is. It's possible, but I don't remember it. 
14 
Q. 
So if somebody is attributing those 
15 statements to you, are you saying that they are 
16 lying? 
17 
A. 
I don't remember having made those 
18 statements. 
19 
MR. SCOTT: I would like to object to the 
20 
entire relevancy of this entire line because 
21 
this doesn't even establish which lady he's 
22 
talking about. That article doesn't even 
23 
establish anything about your client. 
24 
MR. EDWARDS: I hear your objection. But 
25 
the article actually says that Jeffrey Epstein 
EFTA01137910

Page 579 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
was innocent of all allegations. So it's 
apparently talking to at least --
BY MR. EDWARDS: 
Q. 
Wouldn't you agree it's reasonable to 
presume that it's talking about all of the 
allegations --
A. 
Allegations against him that I recall at 
the time that I was representing him involve two 
women, two young women, is my recollection of the 
allegations. And we were taking the position, and 
we took the position with the State Attorney that he 
was not guilty of those allegations. 
There were many defenses that were being 
raised, some dealing with credibility, some dealing 
with --
MR. INDYKE: Objection, objection. 
A. 
-- whether or not some of the women showed 
him IDs. 
MR. INDYKE: You're getting into 
attorney-client. 
SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: Go ahead ad make 
your point. 
MR. INDYKE: My point is that it sounds to 
me that Alan is now discussing attorney-client 
matters and internal decisions and strategies 
EFTA01137911

Page 580 
1 
and statements that may not have been a matter 
2 
of public record. 
3 
SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: I think you 
4 
responded to the question. 
5 
MR. INDYKE: And therefore they're subject 
6 
to privilege, and we object and instruct him 
7 
not --
8 
MR. SCOTT: Again, I'm going to object to 
9 
relevancy. It's been going on for hours. It 
10 
doesn't even involve his client. 
11 
SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: I'm not going to 
12 
rule on the relevancy objection. This is 
13 
something that you can take up later at a 
14 
deposition. So move forward. He gets to take 
15 
his own deposition. 
16 
BY MR. EDWARDS: 
17 
Q. 
Do you remember that one of the alleged 
18 victims that you were -- do you remember trying to 
19 discredit one of the alleged victims named -- hold 
20 on, this is difficult here. What I'm having trouble 
21 with is what we are going to do with the identity of 
22 underage sex abuse victims. I'm a little nervous to 
23 say it on the record on a video. So can we just 
24 take a two-minute break, five-minute break so that I 
25 can figure out how we're going to work this out? 
EFTA01137912

Page 581 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
time 
(Recess 
The 
BY MR. 
Q. 
that has 
included 
SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: We're on break. 
VIDEOGRAPHER: Going off the record. The 
is approximately 3:23 p.m. 
was held from 3:23 p.m. until 3:38 p.m.) 
VIDEOGRAPHER: Going back on the record. 
time is approximately 3:38 p.m. 
EDWARDS: 
I'm going to give you the police report 
been moved in as Exhibit 18, and I have 
a sticky note that we'll throw away. I'm 
going to refer to her by the name A.H., but I've 
marked her real name so that you will know it, and 
I'll ask if you remember her and things of that 
nature. But here you go. 
A. 
While I'm doing that, may I amend the 
previous answer? 
MR. INDYKE: If you're asking if he knows 
her name, then I would object to -- on the same 
basis I objected previously. 
MR. SIMPSON: Why don't we discuss that on 
the next break before you amend an answer. 
SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: Go ahead again. 
I lost it. 
MR. INDYKE: If you're asking whether or 
not he knows this person A.H., if that's the 
EFTA01137913