00:39:32
00:39:35
00:39:38
00:39:40
00:39:43
00:39:44
00:39:44
00:40:06
00:40:06
00:40:07
00:40:09
00:40:09
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12
00:40:14 13 oozes 14
00:40:21
00:40:28
00:40:34
00:40:37
00:40:39
15 16 17 18 19
00:40:40 20 00:40:40 21
00:40:44 22
00:40:48
00:40:51
00:40:52
00:40:55
00:40:55
00:40:58
00:41:00
00:41:02
00:41:05
00:41:10
00:41:14
00:41:15,
00:41:48
00:41:20
00:41:26
00:41:30
00:41:34
00:41:38
00:41:41
00:41:44
00:41:46
00:41:48
23 24 25
On Oak OND =
to
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
00:41:53 20 00:41:57 21 00:42:00 22
00:42:01
23
00:42:03 24
00:42:07
11 of 46 sheets
25
192 Are you now asking for an expansion of that response to include information that's been gathered since December 30th?
MR. SIMPSON: I will take your objection to
the form.
Can we have the question back?
(Thereupon, a portion of the record was read
by the reporter.)
MR, SCAROLA: And I object. The question is
vague and ambiguous because it fails to identify the time period about which you are inquiring. BY MR. SIMPSON:
Q. Mr. Cassell, as you sit here today, are you prepared, based on the information you have available to you, to assert that Professor Dershowitz intentionally provided misleading or doctored documents to a prosecuting authority?
A. So based on all the information I have today?
Q. Yes.
A. Yes.
Q. What do you base -- what is the basis for that conclusion, and include information up until today?
A. All right. So, obviously, that's an open-ended question.
Q. 1-- just answer the question, please, as
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 193 best you can.
A. Sure. Allright. Well, let me just -- that's a lot -- there's a lot of things to get into on that.
Let's start with the events of the last two days, the deposition of Mr. Dershowitz, which in my mind demonstrates repeated false statements that were made by Mr, Dershowitz.
Let's begin with the overarching point about the deposition of the last two days. I've been practicing law -- law since about 1986. And in my experience, I have never seen a more evasive effort to avoid answering questions, and to essentially run out the clack so that detailed questions could not be asked by my attorney. And I witnessed over the last two days, Mr. Dershowitz was asked a series of very simple questions; where were you on this day; or what's the name; or what time, things like that, and instead of, you know, giving an -- an immediate answer, he ended up giving a very extended answer commonly punctuated with disparaging remarks that seemed to have nothing to do with answering the question.
So I drew the inference from that that Mr. Dershowitz did not want to answer questions over the last two days.
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400
00:42:08
90:42:10
00:42:14
00:42:17
00:42:19
00:42:22
00:42:25
00:42:27
00:42:30
00:42:31
00:42:32
00:42:33
00:42:34
00:42:34
00:42:35
00:42:37
00:42:39
00:42:43
00:42:44
00:42:43
00:42:50
00:42:51
00:42:51
00:42:54
00:42:54
00:42:55
90:42:56
00:43:00
90:43:02
00:43:05
00:43:07
00:43:09
00:43:10
00:43:10
00:43:13
00:43:13
90:43:15
00:43:18
00:43:21
00:43:24
00:43:27
00:43:28
00:43:31
00:43:34
00:43:37
00:43:38
00:43:41
00:43:44
00:43:48
00:43:52
ON OO kh O&O DH
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
oOo ON OO hk WO RH =
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
194 Another thing that happened during the deposition, and I will not repeat what was said inthe deposition, because there was immediately an objection from Ms. McCawley, but there were two points in the
deposition where Mr, Dershowitz made representations
about what a New York Attorney David Boies would say, and I'm not going into any --
Q. 1-- I just want to say if he starts talking about it --
MS. McCAWLEY: No, I -- I object to any reference --
MR, SIMPSON: -- then I get to ask all the questions if he should say anything.
MS. McCAWLEY: I think he's just acknowledging that -- I’m sorry. I think he’s acknowledging that that occurred. I object to any -- any discussion of any settlement communications in the context of that privilege.
MR. SCAROLA: I don't intend to get into any settlement discussions. We are not going to repeat the substance of the objected-to testimony.
MR. SIMPSON: My point, I just want it to be on notice --
MS. McCAWLEY: Yes.
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 195
MR. SIMPSON: -- is if this witness starts saying anything about his communications or why he -- he's coming to a conclusion, he's putting that forth as a basis, he has opened the door.
You can't put it forth and park and not let me ask for all the discussions.
MR. SCAROLA: You can -- you can proceed and you know not to include privileged --
THE WITNESS: Yes.
MR. SCAROLA: -- cornmunications.
THE WITNESS: There was a newspaper that reported -- a Florida business newspaper that promptly after Mr. Dershowitz said that Mr. Boies had made certain representations, a Florida -- respected Florida business newspaper immediately reported that David Boies had said, that was a false statement.
And In light of that, I now had David Boies saying that Mr. Dershowitz was making false statements under oath during the -- the deposition that occurred over the last two days.
In addition to that, I had -- again, during the deposition, I heard Mr. Dershowitz say that Attorney Bob Josefsberg had said that -- words to the effect that he, Josefsberg, did not believe
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400
Page 192 to 195 of 335
10/20/2015 01:08:15 PM
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010851