EFTA00615583

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 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
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 
www.phi sre orting.com 
EFTA00615683

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 
www.phi sre orting.com 
EFTA00615684

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 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
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 
www.phi sre orting.com 
EFTA00615685

565 
1 
said them, I might have told you I didn't say them, 
2 
I would have to have checked. 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
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 
15 
16 
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 
www.phi sre orting.com 
EFTA00615686

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 
www.phi sre orting.com 
EFTA00615687

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 
9 
10 
11 
BY MR. EDWARDS: 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
THE WITNESS: I don't think so, based on a 
25 
combination of factors, including material that 
www.phi sre orting.com 
EFTA00615688

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 III. 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 
www.phi sre orting.com 
EFTA00615689

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. 
www.phi sre orting.com 
EFTA00615690

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. 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
www.phi sre orting.com 
EFTA00615691

571 
1 
anything is missing, I regret it much more than you 
2 
do because I am positive that they would provide 
3 
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 
M•v f rw r 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
www.phi sre orting.com 
EFTA00615692

572 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
A. 
First of all, I did not rely on --
MR. INDYKE: To the extent that your 
response requires you to invade privilege, I 
would instruct you not to respond. 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
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. 
www.phi sre orting.com 
EFTA00615693

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 
24 
25 
www.phi sre orting.com 
EFTA00615694

574 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
MR. SCOTT: You've been quoting from 
9 
newspapers all along, and now you have a 
10 
problem with a newspaper? 
11 
MR. EDWARDS: I don't have a problem with 
12 
a newspaper. 
13 
SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: Wait a second. 
14 
Move on. You don't need to respond. 
15 
BY MR. EDWARDS: 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
www.phi sre orting.com 
EFTA00615695

1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
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 
www.phi sre orting.com 
EFTA00615696

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? 
www.phi sre orting.com 
EFTA00615697

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. 
www.phi sre orting.com 
EFTA00615698

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 
www.phi sre orting.com 
EFTA00615699

579 
1 
was innocent of all allegations. So it's 
2 
apparently talking to at least --
3 
BY MR. EDWARDS: 
4 
Q. 
Wouldn't you agree it's reasonable to 
5 
presume that it's talking about all of the 
6 
allegations --
7 
A. 
Allegations against him that I recall at 
8 
the time that I was representing him involve two 
9 
women, two young women, is my recollection of the 
10 
allegations. And we were taking the position, and 
11 
we took the position with the State Attorney that he 
12 
was not guilty of those allegations. 
13 
There were many defenses that were being 
14 
raised, some dealing with credibility, some dealing 
15 
with --
16 
MR. INDYKE: Objection, objection. 
17 
A. 
-- whether or not some of the women showed 
18 
him IDs. 
19 
MR. INDYKE: You're getting into 
20 
attorney-client. 
21 
SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: Go ahead ad make 
22 
your point. 
23 
MR. INDYKE: My point is that it sounds to 
24 
me that Alan is now discussing attorney-client 
25 
matters and internal decisions and strategies 
www.phi sre orting.com 
EFTA00615700

580 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
and statements that may not have been a matter 
of public record. 
SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: I think you 
responded to the question. 
MR. INDYKE: And therefore they're subject 
to privilege, and we object and instruct him 
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? 
www.phi sre orting.com 
EFTA00615701

581 
1 
SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: We're on break. 
2 
VIDEOGRAPHER: Going off the record. The 
3 
time is approximately 3:23 p.m. 
4 
(Recess was held from 3:23 p.m. until 3:38 p.m.) 
5 
VIDEOGRAPHER: Going back on the record. 
6 
The time is approximately 3:38 p.m. 
7 
BY MR. EDWARDS: 
8 
Q. 
I'm going to give you the police report 
9 
that has been moved in as Exhibit 18, and I have 
10 
included a sticky note that we'll throw away. I'm 
11 
going to refer to her by the normal'. but I've 
12 
marked her real name so that you will know it, and 
13 
I'll ask if you remember her and things of that 
14 
nature. But here you go. 
15 
A. 
While I'm doing that, may I amend the 
16 
previous answer? 
17 
MR. INDYKE: If you're asking if he knows 
18 
her name, then I would object to -- on the same 
19 
basis I objected previously. 
20 
MR. SIMPSON: Why don't we discuss that on 
21 
the next break before you amend an answer. 
22 
SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: Go ahead again. 
23 
I lost it. 
24 
MR. INDYKE: If you're asking whether or 
25 
not he knows this person I'll, if that's the 
www.phi sre orting.com 
EFTA00615702