EFTA00615583

602 
1 
BY MR. EDWARDS: 
2 
Q. 
Isn't the comment, that's attributed to 
3 
you, doesn't it specifically say he, talking about 
4 
Alan Dershowitz, said that the girl who accused 
5 
Epstein of forcible sex had a long record of lying, 
6 
theft and blaming others for her crimes? That's --
7 
A. 
I categorically deny having said that in a 
8 
context of a statement about forcible sex. What the 
9 
Mail probably did is they juxtaposed their view 
10 
based on these articles that it was forcible sex and 
11 
assumed somehow that what I was saying related to 
12 
her. That's not what I said. That I remember quite 
13 
unequivocally. 
14 
Q. 
is particularly one of the victims --
15 
A. 
is not mentioned in this article. 
16 
Q. 
No, no, 
is one of the victims whose 
17 
MySpace page you used to give a presentation to the 
18 
State Attorney's Office about her credibility, isn't 
19 
it? 
20 
MR. SCOTT: Let me object. Argumentative. 
21 
We've been through this five times. 
22 
MR. INDYKE: Objection, same instruction. 
23 
SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: How much further 
24 
do you have on this line of questions because I 
25 
will be --
www.phi sre orting.com 
EFTA00615723

603 
1 
MR. EDWARDS: I just want to get an 
2 
answer, that's it. I want to get answers. 
3 
SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: But the point is 
4 
well made that the way this article is 
5 
constructed, it's meant to -- really the only 
6 
thing that's quoted here based upon this 
7 
article is "had a long record of lying, theft 
8 
and blaming others for her crimes." 
9 
The rest of it is not. And so you don't 
10 
know the source. Based upon what you've 
11 
already elicited from the witness, he doesn't 
12 
remember even talking to the Mail. And so I 
13 
don't want impact your line of questioning. 
14 
I've let you go on this. But how much further 
15 
do you have? 
16 
MR. EDWARDS: Okay, but I think I need to 
17 
put this in context, then, so that we kind of 
18 
understand what the point of this is. 
19 
This is a defamation action where we've 
20 
been accused of not performing any 
21 
investigation. So part of what we had to do is 
22 
what has she told us and what can we prove, and 
23 
what has he said in light of the evidence. 
24 
When we're weighing credibility, this is 
25 
one of the public statements that we have to 
www.phi sre orting.com 
EFTA00615724

604 
1 
weigh against the evidence. 
2 
SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: And I've read 
3 
the pleadings, I've read the various arguments, 
4 
I've read the summary judgment that was filed, 
5 
and so I agree, that's why I've kind of let 
6 
this continue. But how much further? Because 
7 
I'm not so sure how much more information you 
8 
can get from him that you haven't gotten 
9 
already. 
10 
BY MR. EDWARDS: 
11 
Q. 
Are the three statements that are 
12 
attributed to you in the Daily Mail true or false? 
13 
MR. SCOTT: Asked and answered three 
14 
times. 
15 
MR. INDYKE: Same objection, same 
16 
instruction. 
17 
A. 
I have no knowledge, as I said today, as 
18 
to whether or not Jeffrey Epstein passed a lie 
19 
detector test. If I said it, and I don't recall 
20 
saying it, I assume it's true. I can check that. 
21 
So I assume statement one is true. Statement two, 
22 
"'The financier had paid for massages, but did not 
23 
engage in sex or erotic massages with any minors,' 
24 
the lawyer insisted," I have no recollection of 
25 
saying that. 
www.phi sre orting.com 
EFTA00615725

605 
1 
BY MR. EDWARDS: 
2 
Q. 
Can we start over and go back to the first 
3 
statement and finish that whole statement, and then 
4 
you tell me whether it's true or false? 
5 
A. 
Right. 
6 
Q. 
So the first statement is told the Mail --
7 
MR. INDYKE: If you are speaking about the 
8 
truth or falsity about these statements in any 
9 
manner to which I have I inserted my 
10 
objections, I would ask you not to answer the 
11 
question. 
12 
SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: So in the 
13 
context of privilege that Mr. Epstein is 
14 
asserting, can you answer the question any 
15 
further than you have already? 
16 
THE WITNESS: Yes. I can. 
17 
SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: Go ahead. 
18 
A. 
Our position was that he was innocent of 
19 
the allegations against him. They did not include 
20 
any allegations relating to forcible sex, they did 
21 
not include any of the things that you just read. 
22 
And our position was, and we stated it to 
23 
the State Attorney, that he was innocent of those 
24 
allegations, innocent of those statements. 
25 
I don't want to ever be held to statements 
www.phi sre orting.com 
EFTA00615726

606 
1 
that are not quoted, because particularly the Daily 
2 
Mail and other newspapers take tremendous liberties 
3 
with what you say. And therefore --
4 
BY MR. EDWARDS: 
5 
Q. 
I'm asking are they true or false? 
6 
A. 
Say it again. 
7 
Q. 
Are the statements true or false? 
8 
A. 
Statement one is passed the lie detector 
9 
test. 
10 
MR. INDYKE: Objection again. 
11 
A. 
I don't know the answer to that, but I 
12 
assume if I said it, it was true at the time. 
13 
Statement two, he was innocent of all the 
14 
allegations, that was the position that we took as 
15 
to the two women who had allegation against them. 
16 
the State Attorney obviously did not credit 
17 
.'s testimony because he never -- it would be 
18 
irresponsible for a State Attorney not to bring rape 
19 
charges against somebody who had done what you 
20 
allege from that police report had been done. 
21 
Obviously the State Attorney came to the conclusion 
22 
that there were real questions about her 
23 
credibility. 
24 
BY MR. EDWARDS: 
25 
Q. 
Is it true or false? 
www.phi sre orting.com 
EFTA00615727

607 
1 
A. 
The statements are true. 
2 
Q. 
All of them are true? 
3 
A. 
All of these statements, to the extent 
4 
that I made them, are true. 
5 
MR. INDYKE: Objection. 
6 
A. 
To the extent that I made these 
7 
statements, they are true, yes. And you should have 
8 
been on your guard when you saw that there were no 
9 
quotes, and you should have checked to see that the 
10 
one statement that was quoted probably appeared in a 
11 
legal document. And you should have checked with 
12 
Churchill to see if I ever spoke with her, because I 
13 
have absolutely no recollection of speaking with her 
14 
and I'm fairly confident I did not. 
15 
MR. EDWARDS: I move to strike the 
16 
unresponsive aspects of that answer beyond 
17 
whether they were true or false, which I 
18 
believe the witness has said the statements are 
19 
true. 
20 
A. 
That's not --
21 
MR. INDYKE: To the extent that the 
22 
witness was making that statement from 
23 
privileged information, I move to strike the 
24 
remainder of it. 
25 
SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: To the extent 
www.phi sre orting.com 
EFTA00615728

608 
1 
that -- your motion on the privilege piece is 
2 
granted to the extent that that's what it's 
3 
based upon. 
4 
However, I would say to you that the 
5 
balance of the statement is in response to your 
6 
continued questions on it, so I'm going to 
7 
leave it be. You can be put in context in 
8 
argument with the Court. 
9 
MR. INDYKE: Okay. Thank you. 
10 
BY MR. EDWARDS: 
11 
Q. 
Did you write a letter or communicate to 
12 
the U.S. Attorney's Office that Mr. Epstein never 
13 
targeted minors? 
14 
A. 
I have no 
15 
MR. INDYKE: Same objection as to 
16 
settlement negotiations. 
17 
BY MR. EDWARDS: 
18 
Q. 
Is that a true statement that Mr. Epstein 
19 
never targeted minors? 
20 
SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: Let me ask a 
21 
question about that. 
22 
Is there a copy of the letter? 
23 
MR. EDWARDS: Yes. 
24 
SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: Is it in the 
25 
context of the negotiation between -- under the 
www.phi sre orting.com 
EFTA00615729

609 
1 
context of either Mr. Dershowitz or his team 
2 
representing Mr. Epstein with the State 
3 
Attorney's Office? 
4 
MR. EDWARDS: It is. And I will put on 
5 
the record something that everyone in this room 
6 
knows, which is that we have litigated in the 
7 
context of that case whether or not a privilege 
8 
extended between the defense attorneys for 
9 
Mr. Epstein and the government. 
10 
We had to battle both the government and 
11 
his defense attorneys on that all the way to 
12 
the 11th Circuit, and we have an 11th Circuit 
13 
opinion indicating that there is no such 
14 
privilege. 
15 
So to the extent it is being claimed, it 
16 
was already ruled there is no such privilege by 
17 
the 11th Circuit. 
18 
A. 
But --
19 
SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: Hang on one 
20 
second. I'm at a disadvantage because you've 
21 
lived the case and this is my second day in the 
22 
case. So what 
who was party to the 11th 
23 
Circuit? Darren, were you involved with that, 
24 
or were you, Tom? 
25 
MR. SCOTT: No. 
www.phi sre orting.com 
EFTA00615730

610 
1 
MR. INDYKE: No, not directly. 
2 
MR. EDWARDS: Martin Weinberg and Roy 
3 
Black represented Jeffrey Epstein there. The 
4 
government, I believe, was represented by 
5 
in the argument. And we were the 
6 
other party. And we prevailed by written 
7 
opinion. I think that it --
8 
THE WITNESS: I'm personally delighted if 
9 
there is no negotiation privilege because the 
10 
negotiation privilege only has been invoked 
11 
against me --
12 
MR. SCAROLA: There's no question pending. 
13 
THE WITNESS: Sorry. Sorry. 
14 
MR. SCAROLA: We move to strike. 
15 
SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: I would agree 
16 
with. Strike that last portion from the 
17 
witness. 
18 
If you can share the 11th Circuit opinion, 
19 
that would be appreciated. 
20 
MR. EDWARDS: Okay. 
21 
THE WITNESS: With us, too. 
22 
MR. SCOTT: I've never seen it. 
23 
MR. SIMPSON: I'm aware there is one. 
24 
MR. EDWARDS: Okay. Thank you, Rick. 
25 
MR. SCOTT: I've never seen or read the 
www.phi sre orting.com 
EFTA00615731

611 
1 
opinion, that's all I'm telling you. 
2 
BY MR. EDWARDS: 
3 
Q. 
Do you know Gerald Lefcourt? 
4 
A. 
I do. 
5 
Q. 
One of the cases -- when you were 
6 
outlining the five pieces of litigation, one of the 
7 
cases was the Crime Victim Rights Act that you 
8 
outlined? 
9 
A. 
I don't think I included that. That 
10 
brings it up to seven. Unless you're talking about 
11 
the case in front of Judge Marra. 
12 
Q. 
I'm going to show you what we'll mark as 
13 
the next consecutive exhibit, and I don't have a 
14 
clean copy, but it's okay. We can mark mine. 
15 
MR. SCOTT: Well, while we're doing that, 
16 
can we get the exhibits actually marked and 
17 
make sure we know which is which for the 
18 
record? 
19 
(Discussion off the record.) 
20 
(Thereupon, marked as Plaintiff 
21 
Exhibit 22.) 
22 
BY MR. EDWARDS: 
23 
Q. 
Can we go to page 13? Can we go to the 
24 
last page? And is that your signature? 
25 
A. 
No, it's not. 
www.phi sre orting.com 
EFTA00615732

612 
1 
Q. 
On the last page. 
2 
A. 
It is not. 
3 
Q. 
That's not your signature? 
4 
A. 
No. 
5 
Q. 
Who signed your name to this document? 
6 
A. 
I don't know, but I didn't sign it. It's 
7 
not my signature. It's not even close. 
8 
Q. 
Somebody forged your signature to this 
9 
document? 
10 
A. 
No, no, I don't know. It's not my 
11 
signature. You asked me the question is it my 
12 
signature. It is not my signature. You can check 
13 
it against hundreds of signatures. 
14 
Q. 
Did you have anything do with the 
15 
authoring of this letter? 
16 
A. 
My recollection -- I'd have to read the 
17 
letter -- is that I did some of the legal research. 
18 
My job was primarily to be the legal research 
19 
person. 
20 
MR. INDYKE: Objection. 
21 
BY MR. EDWARDS: 
22 
Q. 
I'm really just asking about this letter 
23 
and the authenticity of it. 
24 
A. 
I did not sign this letter. 
25 
Q. 
Did you authorize someone to sign your 
www.phi sre orting.com 
EFTA00615733

613 
1 
signature to this letter? 
2 
A. 
I have no recollection. But probably. I 
3 
can't imagine somebody sending a letter with my name 
4 
on it that wasn't somehow authorized. 
5 
Q. 
Is that something that you would do is 
6 
authorize somebody to sign your name to a letter? 
7 
A. 
I'm not responsible for who signed this 
8 
letter. I did not sign this letter. All I can tell 
9 
you is I know my signature, and nobody who knows my 
10 
signature would know this is not my signature. 
11 
Q. 
Okay. You do know Gerald Lefcourt? 
12 
A. 
Yeah. In fact, my name is even spelled 
13 
wrong, but it's okay. I know Gerald Lefcourt very 
14 
well, yeah. 
15 
Q. 
Was he authorized to sign your name to the 
16 
bottom of a letter? 
17 
A. 
I'm sure he must have been. I'm sure I 
18 
saw a draft of the letter at some point and said, 
19 
that's okay, or maybe he just assumed he can sign my 
20 
name because I had done the research, legal 
21 
research, the III you do of counsel, outside counsel 
22 
letters --
23 
MR. INDYKE: Objection. 
24 
A. 
but I don't have any distinct 
25 
recollection of this. 
www.phi sre orting.com 
EFTA00615734

614 
1 
BY MR. EDWARDS: 
2 
Q. 
You agree that the recipient of that 
3 
letter would believe that that was a letter authored 
4 
by you, given that it was purported to be your 
5 
signature at the bottom, wouldn't you agree? 
6 
A. 
A letter that I had some input to. No, 
7 
not necessarily. The first signature is Lefcourt. 
8 
I'm senior to him, older than him. Normally if I 
9 
wrote a letter, my name would come first. 
10 
Probably what should have been -- probably 
11 
it should have included my name as of counsel. 
12 
But -- but, again, I don't have any real 
13 
recollection of this letter. 
14 
Q. 
If we go to page 13, second paragraph --
15 
A. 
I don't see pages. 
16 
MR. SCOTT: Do you need time to review 
17 
this letter? 
18 
A. 
It's a long, long letter 
It would take 
19 
me over an hour to review it, probably take me an 
20 
hour to review it. There are no pages. Yours may 
21 
have pages; mine don't have pages. 
22 
BY MR. EDWARDS: 
23 
Q. 
In the top right, it starts "Jeffrey 
24 
Sloman," if you go down to that --
25 
A. 
Would you find it for me. 
www.phi sre orting.com 
EFTA00615735

615 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
Q. 
Sure. 
MR. SCOTT: Do you want to review the 
letter for few a minutes? Professor, do you 
want to review the letter for a few minutes? 
THE WITNESS: I see where it is. Let me 
first hear the question, and then I might want 
to review it. I think it's basically a legal 
8 
brief, if I recall correctly. Page 13. 
9 
BY MR. EDWARDS: 
10 
Q. 
Second paragraph. 
11 
A. 
I see it. 
12 
Q. 
Second sentence, "As we believe we 
13 
persuaded you at the June 26 meeting..." 
14 
Were you at the June 26 meeting? 
15 
A. 
I don't remember. I've been at several of 
16 
the meetings, but I can't give you a date. I can go 
17 
back in my calendars and see if I was at the June 26 
18 
meeting, 
19 
Q. 
20 
wouldn't 
21 
sentence 
22 
A. 
23 
Q. 
24 
A. 
25 
Q. 
but I don't have a current recollection. 
Given the two signatures at the bottom, 
a reasonable interpretation of that 
be "as we" 
Yes. 
-- "Alan and Gerald"? 
Yes. 
Comma, "Mr. Epstein never targeted 
www.phi sre orting.com 
EFTA00615736

616 
1 
minors." 
2 
Do you see that? 
3 
A. 
Yes. 
4 
Q. 
Is that a true statement? 
5 
A. 
That was the position --
6 
MR. INDYKE: Objection. Same objection on 
7 
any privilege, attorney-client, settlement 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
privilege. 
SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: Can I see the 
document? 
MR. INDYKE: Object and instruct him not 
to answer. 
SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: Hang on one 
second. 
THE WITNESS: Do you want to give it to me 
16 
overnight and we do it tomorrow? 
17 
MR. SCOTT: He needs to read the letter 
18 
MR. EDWARDS: To know whether that's a 
19 
truthful statement? 
20 
MR. SCOTT: He wants to read the letter 
21 
before he's examined on it. 
22 
MR. EDWARDS: He can read the statement 
23 
I'm going to ask him is that a truthful 
24 
statement. 
25 
MR. SCOTT: But he needs to read it in the 
www.phi sre orting.com 
EFTA00615737

617 
1 
1 
context of the whole letter. That's what 
2 
you're entitled to do. He's entitled to read 
3 
the exhibits before he answers that. 
4 
MR. SCAROLA: We'll move on and we'll deal 
5 
with it tomorrow. He can read it overnight. 
6 
MR. SCOTT: You seem to be laughing at 
7 
things I say or smiling at them, and I 
8 
apologize if you do that, because I'm just 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
trying to protect my client --
MR. EDWARDS: I understand. 
MR. SCOTT: -- like you're trying to 
protect yours. And I wasn't laughing at you 
when we took Mr. Cassell's deposition. 
Seriously, I don't understand why you laughed 
several times. I don't get it. This is 
serious, and nobody is enjoying this. 
17 
SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: Okay. 
18 
THE WITNESS: One laughs, one cries. 
19 
MR. EDWARDS: I think we're just waiting, 
20 
right? 
21 
MR. SCOTT: So he can make a copy 
22 
overnight and look at it. 
23 
SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: That's fine. I 
24 
would suggest for purposes of tomorrow that a 
25 
copy of the letter be sent to counsel that's on 
www.phi sre orting.com 
EFTA00615738

618 
1 
the phone, too, so at least he can hear 
2 
argument around that letter rather than have 
3 
him be at a disadvantage. 
4 
MR. EDWARDS: It would have to be sent by 
5 
them. Jeffrey Epstein is not submitted to the 
6 
jurisdiction of the Court. 
7 
SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: This is going to 
8 
be -- my guess is that it's going to be subject 
9 
to a full further inquiry, so let's just -- you 
10 
know, we'll skip to it. 
11 
MR. SCOTT: If I can have copies of the 
12 
exhibits ahead of time so we can look at them, 
13 
it would be helpful. We're going to be using 
14 
them to cross examine him. 
15 
MR. EDWARDS: I'm sorry, Tom. I will do 
16 
that. I was not prepared for the fact that 
17 
Mr. Dershowitz's signature's on the bottom of 
18 
something and he apparently didn't sign them. 
19 
I was blindsided, too. I thought this was a 
20 
letter he would be intimately familiar with 
21 
because I thought he had authored it. I didn't 
22 
realize somebody had signed his name to the 
23 
bottom of it. 
24 
And that's the cause of my laughter, 
25 
because I've personally never seen that before. 
www.phi sre orting.com 
EFTA00615739

619 
9 
10 
BY 
11 
12 
13 
14 
1 
I've never seen that happen. 
2 
MR. SCOTT: I understand, but when you're 
3 
going to show -- I apologize, Mr. Pozzuoli, but 
4 
when you're going to show exhibits and ask 
5 
questions about them, you should anticipate 
6 
that the witness and his counsel would want to 
7 
see them. So you should have a copy of them. 
8 
I think that's basic good rules of a 
deposition. 
MR. EDWARDS: 
Q. 
Do you agree that in assessing your 
credibility on the subject matter of who was 
involved in the abuse of underage girls, that it 
would be fair and reasonable to assess the 
15 
statements that you made during and surrounding that 
16 
investigation against the available evidence? 
17 
MR. SCOTT: Objection --
18 
A. 
If that would be done, every criminal 
19 
defense lawyer in the country could be charged with 
20 
rape, with murder, with every other crime that he 
21 
defends his clients on the basis of. 
22 
I'm a criminal defense lawyer. I've been 
23 
teaching criminal defense law, I've been teaching 
24 
legal ethics in the context of criminal cases for 40 
25 
years. Lawyers are advocates. They assert 
www.phi sre orting.com 
EFTA00615740

620 
1 
positions given to them by clients. And the idea 
2 
that a lawyer asserts a position and, as a result of 
3 
that, is guilty of rape is the worst form of 
4 
McCarthyism imaginable. 
5 
Q. 
So your answer is you don't think it would 
6 
be fair to put your statements up against the 
7 
evidence when evaluating your credibility? 
8 
A. 
In the context that you've just stated, it 
9 
would be utterly unfair, in the context that you 
10 
have just stated, utterly unfair and unprofessional, 
11 
and you know better than that. If I were to judge 
12 
you by the same standards --
13 
SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: Okay. 
14 
BY MR. EDWARDS: 
15 
Q. 
Because this case is about an initial 
16 
allegation of unprofessionalism, I want to 
17 
investigate that last statement. And let me make 
18 
sure that I got it correctly. It would be 
19 
unprofessional of me to assess 
or any lawyer to 
20 
assess your credibility by --
21 
MR. SCOTT: Listen to the question. 
22 
BY MR. EDWARDS: 
23 
Q. 
-- statements that you have made 
24 
surrounding this particular case against the 
25 
backdrop of the available evidence that would be 
www.phi sre orting.com 
EFTA00615741

621 
1 
unprofessional? 
2 
A. 
Not only would it be unprofessional, it 
3 
would involve you also to accuse Jerry Lefcourt, to 
4 
accuse Roy Black, to accuse Ken Starr. All of us 
5 
stood behind our client's defense, and we were 
6 
successful. We persuaded the United States 
7 
Attorney's Office, persuaded the State Attorney's 
8 
Office of our position. 
9 
And you're saying that our advocacy and 
10 
persuasion is evidence that I committed a crime of 
11 
rape. That that is so unprofessional, so goes 
12 
against what the legal system is all about. And 
13 
would basically make it impossible for anybody to 
14 
defend alleged criminals in any criminal context. 
15 
Yes. 
16 
Q. 
Can you find a public statement that was 
17 
made by Roy Black or any of Epstein's other lawyers 
18 
that says that Jeffrey Epstein was innocent of all 
19 
charges or never engaged in an erotic massage or sex 
20 
with minors? 
21 
A. 
Yes, I'm sure that those positions were 
22 
stated universally by all the lawyers in all the 
23 
contexts, if they were stated -- I mean those kinds 
24 
of statements. I'm not saying those statements in 
25 
specific, because I don't know who made those 
www.phi sre orting.com 
EFTA00615742