00:48:15
00:48:19
00:48:22
00:48:26
00:48:27
00:48:29
00:48:32
On Oak WD =
00:48:35
©
00:48:38 00:48:42 10 onaaas 14 cosas 12 00:48:52 13 00:48:56 14 00:48:59 15 ooagor 16 00:49:05 17 oo.aa0s 18 oo-as-to 19 oosor2 20 00:49:13 21 0041s 22 onae:20 23 oo-ss23 24 00:49:26 25
00:49:33 00:49:36 00:49:39 00:49:41 00:49:43 00:49:47
00:49:50
On On & WD
00:49:53
©
00:49:56 oososs 10 onso01 14 oosooa 12 ooso07 13 coso10 14 00:50:14 15 ooso17 16 o0s020 17 005022 18 oos0.28 19 ooso28 20 00:50:29 21 oosos1 22 00:50:34 23 00:50:35 24 00:50:39 25
13 of 46 sheets
200
So I thought that was, again, a deliberate faise statement under oath designed to exculpate him from his criminal involvement in this international sex trafficking ring.
At another point in the transcript, he was asked, quote, -- no, I'm sorry. He stated, quote: I challenge you to find any statement where I said I have never traveled outside the presence of my wife, close quote, representing that there would be no such statement there, when, in fact, I'm aware of an American Lawyer quotation attributed to him from January 15th, 2015, quote: I've been married to the same woman for 28 years. She goes with me everywhere, close quote. And, again, you know, this -- I understand sometimes people may go away from their wife, but the American Lawyer was, obviously, on January 15th, 2015, asking about: Well, have you been outside the presence of your wife in situations where you might have interacted with Virginia Roberts? And that was the answer that he gave to the American Lawyer.
And based on -- on my review of the flight fogs, I thought that was, again, a deliberate effort to obscure and try to exculpate himself from his involvement in this International sex trafficking ring.
The -- he also said yesterday: Nobody knows
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400
204 about Prince Andrew and Virginia, except for the two of them. And, again, I thought that was at a minimum, deliberately mis -- misleading information and more likely deliberately false information, because Mr. Dershowitz was aware of the photograph and had long been aware of the photograph that shows Prince Andrew with his arm around Virginia Roberts, standing next to a beaming Glenn Maxwell who has been involved in this international sex trafficking organization.
And in the circumstances of that photograph, it seems quite likely that the photographer who took that picture was the head of the international sex trafficking ring, Jeffrey Epstein. And so for him to say that only two people knew what went on was, again, deliberately faise information, because I know he is the attorney for Jeffrey Epstein, and he could have asserted attorney/client privilege over that, said, I can't get into my communications with my client about what he was doing with Prince Andrew.
But instead he said, no one knows what happened, other than those two people in circumstances where it was quite clear that there would have been others who would have been aware of that.
Now, the question is: Why do I think the -- the -- you know, there are inaccuracies in the flight
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400
00:50:41
00:50:45
00:50:49
00:50:51
00:50:54
00:50:58
00:51:04
00:51:03
00:51:04
On AOA WH =
9
oos106 10 oostos 11 os 12 oos114 13 oosi7 14 costa 15 oos122 16 oos125 17 oo51.29 18 oos1:32 19 oosts4 20 oos137 24 oot 22 005142 23 costs 24 005147 25
00:51:50
00:51:52
00:51:54
00:51:55
00:51:57
00:54:59
00:52:03
00:52:03
60:52:05
On Oak Gh =
9
00:52:08 1 0 00:52:10 1 1 00:52:13 1 2 00:52:15 1 3 00:52:18 1 4 00:52:20 1 5 00:52:23 1 6 00:52:25 1 7 00:52:27 1 8 00:52:34 1 9 00:52:34 20 00:52:36 21 00:52:36 22 00:52:36 23 00:52:59 24 00:53:00 25
Page 200 to 203 of 335
202 logs. And I could refresh my recollection here by looking at, I think it's docket entry 291 of our pleading that we presented on January 21st to Judge Marra where we provided specific itemized examples of inconsistencies between the Dave Rogers’ flight log and the -- again, I'll call it, the Alan Dershowitz flight log, which was a selected presentation of flight log information,
And when you see those inconsistencies, it becomes very hard to believe that all of the information that was provided in those flight logs was accurate. So when I take all of that information, put it together, I believe that there's sufficient -- I have a sufficient basis for believing at this point in time, that Mr. Dershowitz has, indeed, provided inaccurate information to -- to law enforcement agencies, or at a minimum has provided -- has produced inaccurate information through circumstances beyond his control.
But when he continually represents that the information is accurate and exonerates him, I believe that that is a deliberately false statement.
MR. SIMPSON: Move to strike the answer --
the nonresponsive portion of the answer. MR. SCAROLA: Which portion is that? MR. SIMPSON: 99 percent of it. I think at ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400
203 the end, we got to the flight logs. I move to strike the nonresponsive portion. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. Mr. Cassell, you came here today looking for an opportunity to give that statement; did you not? A. If it was relevant to an answer I was giving, yes. Q. The answer to my question is, yes, you came here today looking for a question to which you could respond with that prepared statement? A. Iwas prepared to give that -- I anticipated that a very good attorney for Mr. Dershowitz might ask a question where that would be relevant. And if that question were asked and I was given the opportunity to make that statement, I wanted to be prepared to give it in the most accurate way that I could. MR. SIMPSON: I would like the reporter to mark as Exhibit -- are we up to 4 ~- Exhibit 4, the document that Mr. Cassell was referring to. lil fet the reporter do that. THE WITNESS: Okay. (Casseil's 1.D. Exhibit No. 4 - document produced by the witness was marked for identification.) MR. SIMPSON: I just want to make that part of the record. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
(954) 331-4400 10/20/2015 01:08:15 PM
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010853