EFTA02726484

240
1 interview, you said: "She made the whole thing up
2 out of whole cloth. I can prove it by flight
3 records. I can prove it by my travel records."
4 Did you make those statements?
5 A. Yes, and they're absolutely true.
6 Q. Okay. I am going to hand you every flight
7 record that has been produced in connection with
8 this litigation.
9 A. Uh-huh.
10 MR. SCAROLA: Could we mark that as the
11 next composite exhibit, please?
12 (Thereupon, marked as Plaintiff
13 Exhibit 6.)
14 MR. SCAROLA: And mark this as the next
15 composite exhibit, which will be 7.
16 MR. SCOTT: These are all the flight
17 manuals?
18 MR. SCAROLA: As far as I know.
19 MR. SCOTT: Okay.
20 MR. SCAROLA: They're the only ones that
21 have been produced in discovery. If there are
22 more, I'm going to be interested to hear about
23 it.
24 (Thereupon, marked as Plaintiff
25 Exhibit 7.)
www.phi sre orting.com
EFTA02726544

241
1 (Discussion off the record.)
2 THE WITNESS: What's Number 6 then? I'm
3 confused, there were two.
4 BY MR. SCAROLA:
5 Q. Have you ever seen Exhibit Number 6
6 before?
7 A. Exhibit Number 6. I don't believe so. It
8 doesn't look familiar to me.
9 Q. No?
10 A. It does not look familiar to me.
11 Q. Did you bother at any time to review
12 discovery that was produced by Bradley Edwards and
13 Paul Cassell responding to requests for information
14 that supported the allegations of
15 A. I'm not clear what you're asking.
16 Q. I want to know --
17 A. In which case? In which case are we
18 talking?
19 Q. This case. This case.
20 A. Right.
21 Q. Did you ever bother to review the
22 discovery produced in this case responding to
23 requests for all of the information that supported
24 their belief in the truthfulness of
25 ' allegations against you?
www.phi sre orting.com
EFTA02726545

242
1 A. I don't know if I reviewed everything.
2 But I certainly, in preparation for this deposition,
3 reviewed some of the documents that were produced in
4 discovery. But I can't say I reviewed them all.
5 Q. Well, having placed such substantial
6 emphasis during the course of your public
7 appearances on the flight logs exonerating you, it
8 would certainly seem logical that one of the things
9 that you would want to review would be all of the
10 available -- all of the available flight logs,
11 right?
12 A. No.
13 MR. SCOTT: Objection, argumentative.
14 A. No.
15 BY MR. SCAROLA:
16 Q. No?
17 A. No. Look, I knew I was never on a plane
18 with any underage females under any circumstances.
19 I knew that. I knew that as certainly as I'm
20 sitting here today. So, I knew absolutely that if
21 the manifests and the flight logs were accurate,
22 they would, of course, exonerate me because I am
23 totally, completely, unequivocally innocent of any
24 of these charges.
25 So of course I knew that I would be
www.phi sre orting.com
EFTA02726546

243
1 exonerated by any flight logs that were innocent
2 that were complete and accurate, of course.
3 Q. So you made the public statements
4 repeatedly that the flight logs would exonerate you
5 without having examined the flight logs to see
6 whether they were accurate or not; is that correct?
7 A. Well, I knew -- I knew that --
8 Q. Did you say those things without having
9 examined the flight logs?
10 A. I said those things having looked at some
11 of the flight logs at some point in time. But I
12 knew for sure that the flight logs would exonerate
13 me because I knew I was never on Jeffrey Epstein's
14 plane with or any other young
15 underage girls. So, I knew that to an absolute
16 certainty. And I was prepared to say it. I'm
17 prepared to say it again under oath here.
18 And if your clients had simply called me
19 and told me they were planning to do this, we
20 wouldn't be here today because I could have shown
21 them in one day that it was impossible for me to
22 have had sex with their client on the island, in the
23 ranch, on the airplanes, in Palm Beach. And they
24 would have, if they were decent and ethical lawyers,
25 not filed that.
www.phi sre orting.com
EFTA02726547

244
1 And there are cases, legal ethics cases
2 that say that lawyers are obliged to make that phone
3 call. Lawyers are obliged to check if it's easy to
4 check. Lawyers are obliged to, particularly when
5 they're making extremely heinous charges against a
6 fellow lawyer, do very, very, detailed
7 investigations. And they didn't do that in this
8 case.
9 Q. I will represent to you that I have handed
10 you all of the available flight logs produced in the
11 discovery of this case. Could you show me, please,
12 which of these flight logs exonerates you?
13 A. The absence of evidence is evidence of
14 absence. None of the flight logs have me on an
15 airplane with . None of the flight
16 logs have me on an airplane during the relevant
17 period of time when claims that she
18 had sex with me in the presence of another woman.
19 So, the flight logs clearly exonerate me.
20 There's absolutely no doubt about that.
21 Q. Well, the flight logs, in fact, confirm
22 that you were in the same places at the same time as
23 , don't they?
24 A. No, they do not.
25 Q. Do you -- do you deny that they confirm
www.phi sre orting.com
EFTA02726548

245
1 that you were in the same place at the same time
2 A. First --
3 Q. -- as ?
4 MR. SCOTT: Let him ask the question.
5 THE WITNESS: Okay.
6 MR. SCOTT: Then you answer the question.
7 And Mr. Scarola will try to, you know, keep the
8 emotion down, I'm sure, so we can get through
9 this with less acrimony between everybody here.
10 A. Your client has adamantly refused, as well
11 as the lawyer --
12 BY MR. SCAROLA:
13 Q. No, sir, that's nonresponsive to my
14 question.
15 MR. SCOTT: Wait a minute.
16 BY MR. SCAROLA:
17 Q. My question is: Do you deny that the
18 flight logs corroborate that you were in the same
19 place at the same time as
20 A. So the question includes the word "time"
21 and, therefore, I must answer in this way. Your
22 client --
23 Q. How to build a watch?
24 MR. SCOTT: Wait a minute, you're cutting
25 him off. He's been trying to answer the
www.phi sre orting.com
EFTA02726549

246
1 question.
2 A. Your client has adamantly refused, and her
3 lawyers and your clients have refused to give me any
4 timeframes, any timeframes when your client claims
5 that she had improper -- falsely claims,
6 perjuriously claims that she had improper sexual
7 encounters with me.
8 So how can you possibly ask me a question
9 that includes the word "timeframes" when your client
10 has refused -- when has refused to
11 give any timeframes? How can it be possible that
12 the flight logs show me being in the same time and
13 same place with her when she has refused to describe
14 any of the times that she claims to have been in
15 those places?
16 So the answer to the question is
17 categorically no, sir.
18 BY MR. SCAROLA:
19 Q. What is the question that you are
20 answering no to?
21 A. Whether or not the timeframe shows that I
22 could have been in the same place at the same time
23 as your client. Absolutely not. Because we don't
24 know what times your client -- now, if you know
25 that, you should have produced them in discovery and
www.phi sre orting.com
EFTA02726550

247
1 I would be very anxious to see any timeframes when
2 claims she was with me on the
3 island, claims she was with me on -- at the ranch,
4 claims she was with me on the airplanes, claims she
5 was with me in Palm Beach. And they will all
6 conclusively --
7 Q. You forgot --
8 A. -- prove --
9 Q. -- New York. Didn't you mean New York
10 also?
11 A. No, I did not mean New York
12 Q. Oh, okay.
13 A. -- because New York is very different. I
14 was, in fact, in New York for large periods of time.
15 I was not, in fact, on the island during the
16 relevant timeframe. I was not in the airplane in
17 the relevant timeframe. I was not in Jeffrey
18 Epstein's Palm Beach home in the relevant timeframe.
19 And I was once in the ranch but under circumstances
20 where it would have been absolutely impossible for
21 me to have had any contact with her.
22 So if you will give me the timeframe, I
23 will be happy to answer your question. But without
24 timeframes, that question is an absolutely
25 inappropriate question. And the answer to it is no.
www.phi sre orting.com
EFTA02726551

248
1 Q. Well, Mr. Dershowitz, it might be
2 inappropriate if you had not repeatedly made the
3 public statements that the flight logs exonerate
4 you.
5 A. They do.
6 Q. So what I am attempting to find out is the
7 basis upon which you can contend that the flight
8 logs exonerate you if you are now telling us you
9 don't even know when it is that you are alleged to
10 have been in the same place at the same time as
11
12 A. Okay.
13 Q. So how -- how can you make both those
14 statements?
15 A. Very simple, because I know the timeframe
16 that , A, knew Jeffrey Epstein. And
17 during that timeframe, I can conclusively prove that
18 I was never on Jeffrey Epstein's island where she
19 claimed to have sex with me. That the only time I
20 was at the ranch was with my wife, with the Ashe
21 family, with my daughter, the house was under
22 construction, we just simply stayed outside the
23 house and looked around. That the manifests show I
24 was never on Jeffrey Epstein's plane during that
25 period of time. And the manifests show that I never
www.phi sre orting.com
EFTA02726552

249
1 flew down to Palm Beach during that relevant period
2 of time.
3 So I have a timeframe not that was
4 provided by your client but that was provided by the
5 externalities of the case. And that timeframe
6 coupled with the manifests clearly exonerate me
7 without any doubt.
8 Q. I want to make sure that I understood what
9 you just said. "I never flew down to Palm Beach
10 during the relevant timeframe"?
11 A. I never flew down and stayed at Jeffrey's
12 house in Palm Beach during that relevant period of
13 time.
14 Q. Okay. So you want to withdraw the
15 statement that you never flew down to Palm Beach
16 MR. SCOTT: Objection.
17 BY MR. SCAROLA:
18 Q. -- during that relevant period of time --
19 A. Let me be --
20 MR. SCOTT: Objection.
21 BY MR. SCAROLA:
22 Q. and what you want to say is, "I never
23 flew down to Palm Beach and stayed at Jeffrey
24 Epstein's house during that timeframe period,"
25 correct?
www.phi sre orting.com
EFTA02726553

250
1 MR. SCOTT: Objection, argumentative --
2 A. Let me be --
3 MR. SCOTT: -- mischaracterization.
4 A. Let me be clear. A, I never flew down on
5 Jeffrey Epstein's plane during the relevant period
6 of time.
7 BY MR. SCAROLA:
8 Q. Flew down to where?
9 A. To Palm Beach or anywhere else. I was
10 never on Jeffrey Epstein's plane, according to the
11 flight manifests and according to my own records,
12 during the relevant period of time.
13 I have independent records of my travel
14 which demonstrate that I was not in Jeffrey
15 Epstein's house during the relevant period of time.
16 And -- but the -- talking about the manifests, the
17 manifests conclusively prove that I was never on the
18 airplane during the relevant period of time.
19 So I don't know how you can claim that the
20 manifests show that I was with
21 during the relevant period of time. They do not do
22 that. And if you would testify under oath to that,
23 I think you could be subject to pretty -- pretty
24 scathing cross examination. So your statement is
25 categorically false, sir.
www.phi sre orting.com
EFTA02726554

251
1 Q. Which of the manifests are you referring
2 to when you claim what you have claimed about the
3 manifests, Exhibit Number 6 or Exhibit Number 7?
4 A. I can only tell you that I have reviewed
5 the manifests and they show, to me, that I was never
6 on Jeffrey Epstein's airplane during the relevant
7 period of time. That's all I can tell you now.
8 I'm not in a position where I look at all
9 these documents now. If you point me to any
10 particular trip that shows that I was on Jeffrey
11 Epstein's plane, I would be happy to respond to
12 that.
13 Q. There are two separate collections of
14 documents purporting to be flight manifests for
15 Jeffrey Epstein's plane. When you made the public
16 statements that you made regarding the flight logs
17 or manifests exonerating you, were you referring to
18 Exhibit Number 6 or Exhibit Number 7?
19 A. I have no recollection as to which
20 particular exhibits, which are formed for purposes
21 of the legal case, I had reviewed. I know I had
22 reviewed the manifests. Not only had I reviewed the
23 manifests, but others reviewed the manifests and
24 have conclusively told me that their review of the
25 manifests shows that I was right.
www.phi sre orting.com
EFTA02726555

252
1 Q. Who else --
2 MR. SCOTT: Avoid any attorney-client
3 communications either with Ms. -- you know,
4 with your current lawyers, please.
5 THE WITNESS: Okay.
6 BY MR. SCAROLA:
7 Q. Who told you that they had reviewed the
8 manifests and they confirmed your position?
9 MR. SCOTT: Objection, work product.
10 MR. SCAROLA: Well, you know, Mr. Scott,
11 he can't have it both ways. He can't insert
12 into the record the gratuitous statements that
13 he inserts into the record regarding others
14 having corroborated his inaccurate testimony,
15 and then refuse to tell us who those others
16 are. It constitutes a waiver of whatever
17 privilege might exist.
18 MR. SCOTT: He can -- he can tell who they
19 are. I'm just saying he can't go into
20 communications with them.
21 MR. SCAROLA: Well, he's already said what
22 the communication was. The communication was
23 these manifests prove your position.
24 MR. SCOTT: And he's answered that because
25 based on his review of them, Mr. Scarola.
www.phi sre orting.com
EFTA02726556

253
1 BY MR. SCAROLA:
2 Q. Who told you that the manifests confirm
3 the accuracy of your public statements?
4 MR. SCOTT: If it involves lawyer-client
5 privilege, don't answer it.
6 THE WITNESS: Okay.
7 BY MR. SCAROLA:
8 Q. You're refusing to answer?
9 A. No, I would like --
10 MR. SCOTT: Instruct you not to answer.
11 A. -- to answer. But I've been instructed
12 not to answer. I would like to answer.
13 You've made a statement --
14 MR. SCOTT: There's no question pending.
15 THE WITNESS: But he made a statement
16 MR. SCOTT: But there's no question
17 pending, sir.
18 BY MR. SCAROLA:
19 Q. What does it mean to make something up out
20 of whole cloth?
21 A. It means that and your
22 clients --
23 Q. No, sir, I haven't asked you anything
24 about I haven't asked you
25 anything about my clients.
www.phi sre orting.com
EFTA02726557

254
1 I want to know what the words "making
2 something up out of whole cloth" mean.
3 A. I said those words in the context of
4
5 MR. SCOTT: That's -- that's fine. Go
6 ahead.
7 BY MR. SCAROLA:
8
Q. What do the words mean?
9 A. That there was absolutely no basis for
10 ' claim that she had any sexual
11 contact with me. That the story was entirely false.
12 I don't know where the metaphor derives about whole
13 cloth, but certainly that's the common
14 understanding. And I repeat under oath that
15 made up the entire story about
16 having sexual contact with me out of whole cloth.
17 Q. During the course of the same interview
18 that we have been referencing with
19 for the record, that's
20 A. What page?
21 Q. Page 19.
22 You were asked: "I'm wondering, have you
23 spoken to Jeffrey Epstein about this since these
24 allegations came out in this suit in the United
25 States? Have conversations happened there?"
www.phi sre orting.com
EFTA02726558

255
1 MR. INDYKE: Objection. This is Darren.
2 Anything that relates to your conversations
3 with Jeffrey --
4 THE REPORTER: He's going to have to speak
5 up.
6 MR. SCOTT: You're going to have to speak
7 up a little bit more, Counsel.
8 MR. INDYKE: Objection. This is Darren
9 Indyke. Anything that Alan might have to say
10 to that, to the extent they are covered under
11 conversations with Jeffrey Epstein, privileged
12 under attorney-client privileges as well as
13 common interest privileges.
14 MR. SCOTT: Do you understand?
15 THE WITNESS: I do.
16 BY MR. SCAROLA:
17 Q. To which your response was: "Sure, sure,
18 certainly I have been his lawyer and I did speak to
19 him about it. I wanted to make sure that his memory
20 and mine coordinated about when I was at his island.
21 He was able to check. I was able to check. I
22 checked with my friends who went with me."
23 Did you make that answer to that question?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Disclosing the contents of your
www.phi sre orting.com
EFTA02726559

256
1 communication with Jeffrey Epstein, correct?
2 A. I disclosed that I had spoken to him to
3 find out whether he had any records of when I was on
4 his island. And, yes.
5 MR. INDYKE: Again, this is Darren Indyke.
6 Jeffrey does not waive any attorney-client
7 privileges here.
8 BY MR. SCAROLA:
9 Q. Well, the reason why you were able to
10 answer that question and discuss with the press what
11 Jeffrey Epstein was telling you was because you
12 weren't his lawyer at that time, right?
13 A. No, I was his lawyer at that time. I'm
14 still his lawyer.
15 Q. Oh, what were you representing him on
16 then --
17 A. The ongoing --
18 Q. -- that is, on January --
19 MR. SCOTT: Whoa.
20 BY MR. SCAROLA:
21 Q. -- on
22 A. The ongoing
23 MR. INDYKE: My objection stands.
24 MR. SCOTT: You can answer what you were
25 representing him on, I think.
www.phi sre orting.com
EFTA02726560

257
1 A. The ongoing issues --
2 MR. SCOTT: But nothing about
3 communications.
4 A. Right. The ongoing issues relating to the
5 NPA, which continue to this day. And I regard
6 myself as his lawyer basically on all those -- all
7 those issues.
8 BY MR. SCAROLA:
9 Q. So, when the pleadings were filed in the
10 Crime Victims Rights Act regarding your conduct in
11 relationship to and Jeffrey
12 Epstein, you were and still are his lawyer in the
13 Crime Victim's Rights Act case; is that correct?
14 A. I certainly am bound by lawyer-client
15 privilege and communications, yes.
16 Q. Okay. You go on to say in that same
17 interview: "Only once in my life have I been in
18 that area," referring to New Mexico.
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. "Only once in my life did my travel
21 records show I was in New Mexico."
22 A. Uh-huh.
23 Q. Is that an accurate statement?
24 A. To the best of my knowledge. I have no
25 recollection of being in New Mexico other than
www.phi sre orting.com
EFTA02726561

258
1 during that visit to the Ashes, which was not during
2 the -- the narrower timeframe.
3 The narrower timeframe, remember, is
4 meets Jeffrey Epstein in the late
5 summer, the summer just before she's turning ■, of
6 . She says she didn't commence having sexual
7 activities with any of Epstein's friends until nine
8 months later. That would put it in March or April
9 of 2000. This visit occurred in January of 2000.
10 It's the only time I recall having been in
11 New Mexico.
12 Q. Okay. I want to be sure now. You're not
13 just saying that you were only at Jeffrey Epstein's
14 ranch in New Mexico once; you are confirming your
15 statement on national television that you have only
16 been in New Mexico one time?
17 A. My recollection right now is that I was
18 only there once. I have no -- no other recollection
19 of -- it's conceivable when I was a very young man,
20 I could have been there. But I have no recollection
21 of having been there. It certainly -- certainly I
22 haven't been there recently. And during the
23 relevant time period, I know I haven't been there.
24 Q. "Recently" means --
25 A. Fifteen --
www.phi sre orting.com
EFTA02726562

259
1 Q. -- the last 10 years?
2 A. I would say 15 --
3 Q. Last 15 --
4 A. years.
5 Q. how about the last 20 years?
6 A. I have -- I don't think so.
7 Q. Okay.
8 A. As I stand here today, I have no
9 recollection of ever being in New Mexico except to
10 visit the Ashes in January of 2000.
11 I'm 77 years old. I've lived a long life.
12 It is certainly possible that at some earlier point
13 in my life -- I mean, I've been in most of the
14 states. But I have no recollection of ever being in
15 New Mexico.
16 And I can tell you unequivocally the only
17 time I was ever at Jeffrey Epstein's ranch was that
18 one time with my wife with the Ashes, with my
19 daughter. And we only stayed there for an hour and
20 the house was not completed. It was under
21 construction. And I certainly did not have any
22 sexual encounter or any encounter with
23 during that visit.
24 MR. SCAROLA: Move to strike the
25 unresponsive portions of the answer.
www.phi sre orting.com
EFTA02726563