EFTA02726484

280
1 BY MR. SCAROLA:
2 Q. The question was: Is that part of the
3 time that you claim exonerates you?
4 A. Well, I think if you read the whole
5 testimony, it clearly exonerates me and I think that
6 part of the testimony in no way inculpates me and no
7 reasonable person reading that could use that as a
8 basis for making allegations that I had sexual
9 encounters or misconduct with
10 So, when -- if that's the best testimony
11 that your unprofessional clients relied on, then
12 clearly that exonerates me.
13 Again, the absence of evidence is evidence
14 of absence. And the very idea that this is seen as
15 some basis for concluding that I had sexual
16 encounters with -- with , why wasn't
17 he asked did he ever see me have a massage by
18 ? Did he ever see me have a sexual
19 encounter with ? Did he ever go to
20 the room I was staying in and find any sex toys?
21 The answers to all those questions, if
22 truthful, would be no.
23 Q. What was Mr. Alessi's motive against you?
24 You've told us he was fired by Jeffrey Epstein, so
25 he may have had some motive against Mr. Epstein.
www.phi sre orting.com
EFTA02726584

281
1 What was his motive against you?
2 A. I was Jeffrey Epstein's friend and lawyer
3 and, in fact -- well, I can't get into this. But I
4 can say this, I gave advice
5 MR. SCOTT: Be careful about anything
6 involving --
7 THE WITNESS: Okay.
8 MR. SCOTT: -- Mr. Epstein, please.
9 A. He could easily have believed that I was
10 one of the causes of his firing.
11 BY MR. SCAROLA:
12 Q. So, he was -- he may have been angry at
13 you because you assisted in getting him fired?
14 A. It's --
15 MR. SCOTT: Objection,
16 mischaracterization.
17 A. It's conjecture. It's possible. But in
18 any event, even --
19 BY MR. SCAROLA:
20 Q. It's conjecture, is that what you were
21 about to say?
22 A. I'm saying I have -- I don't know what he
23 was thinking, but there is a basis for him believing
24 that. But most -- most important, even if you take
25 everything he says as true, which it's not, it's
www.phi sre orting.com
EFTA02726585

282
1 exculpatory because it has no suggestion that I ever
2 had any sexual encounter with
3 And if I were a lawyer reading that --
4 MR. SCOTT: It's okay?
5 A. -- I certainly would not base this heinous
6 accusation on that flimsy read.
7 BY MR. SCAROLA:
8 Q. You know the context in which that
9 deposition was taken, don't you?
10 A. I don't recall it as I'm sitting here
11 today.
12 Q. Do you remember that the lawsuit in which
13 that deposition was taken was a lawsuit in which
14 was being represented by-
15
16 A. No.
17 Q. You know , don't you?
18 A. We we were classmates at law school.
19 Q. You know to be an extremely
20 ethical, highly professional and extraordinarily
21 well-respected lawyer, right?
22 A. Absolutely, yes.
23 Q. Absolutely?
24 A. Yeah.
25 Q. A man of impeccable honesty and integrity?
www.phi sre orting.com
EFTA02726586

283
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. A man who would never undertake to advance
3 the cause of a client whom he believed to be
4 incredible, right?
5 A. Yes. And a man who told me and a man
6 who --
7 MR. SCOTT: That's it.
8 A. Okay. And a man who believes I'm
9 innocent.
10 BY MR. SCAROLA:
11 Q. You know that would never
12 file charges on behalf of a client alleging that she
13 was lent out by Jeffrey Epstein for purposes of
14 sexual abuse while she was a minor to academicians
15 unless he absolutely had confidence that those
16 statements were true --
17 MR. SCOTT: Let me object --
18 BY MR. SCAROLA:
19 Q. -- right?
20 MR. SCOTT: -- that this is completely
21 irrelevant to the issues in this case.
22 Whatever thinks has nothing to
23 do with this lawsuit. This is all your effort
24 to try to put into this case to try
25 to give some justification to your position.
www.phi sre orting.com
EFTA02726587

284
1 A. I'll answer that question.
2 BY MR. SCAROLA:
3 Q. Thank you.
4 A. And I also know and know
5 that he would never maintain a friendship, as he has
6 with me, if he believed that I was one of the,
7 quote, academicians --
8
Q. Well, how about
9 A. -- with whom --
10 Q. -- answering my question --
11 MR. SCOTT: Wait a minute. No, no, no.
12 A. You're going to let me finish.
13 BY MR. SCAROLA:
14 Q. I know I'm going to go, but I don't have
15 to like it --
16 MR. SCOTT: Yeah, but --
17 BY MR. SCAROLA:
18 Q. -- when you're not being responsive to the
19 questions that are being asked.
20 MR. SCOTT: Yeah, but you're
21 interjecting
22 BY MR. SCAROLA:
23 Q. And --
24 MR. SCOTT: You're interjecting questions
25 that are irrelevant utilizing
www.phi sre orting.com
EFTA02726588

285
1 relationship with him and he has an ability to
2 justify and explain his position in response
3 MR. SCAROLA: If it's responsive to the
4 question.
5 A. It's responsive. And as far as the
6 filibustering is --
7 BY MR. SCAROLA:
8 Q. Do you remember what the question is?
9 A. is concerned, I was here --
10 Q. Do you remember what the question was?
11 A. Yes. Yes.
12 Q. What is the question?
13 A. The question is -- no, why don't you
14 repeat the question.
15 Q. Yes, sir.
16 A. So --
17 Q. You know that would not
18 advance allegations on behalf of a client that that
19 client had been lent out by Jeffrey Epstein to
20 satisfy the sexual desires of friends of Jeffrey
21 Epstein, including academicians, unless
22 believed those allegations to be true,
23 right?
24 A. I believe that -- I know that
25 would never maintain a friendship with
www.phi sre orting.com
EFTA02726589

286
1 me, as he has, if he believed that I was one of
2 those academicians. knows that I was
3 not one of those academicians, and the inference of
4 your question is beneath contempt, sir.
5 Q. Could we try to answer the question now?
6 A. The answer is that would
7 never maintain a friendship with me if he believed
8 that there was any possibility that I was among the
9 academicians who she was accusing of sexual
10 misconduct. I do not believe that she ever accused
11 me of sexual misconduct to , to the
12 FBI, to the U.S. attorney, or even, sir, to you and
13 Bradley Edwards, as she says in 2000, I think, '11.
14 I think she made up this story on the eve of the
15 filing in
16 Q. You do agree that would not
17 have advanced the claims that he advanced if he did
18 not have confidence that they were true, correct?
19 A. I have no idea what he believed or knew at
20 the time. I would say this: I know
21 is an extraordinarily ethical lawyer. I don't know
22 what his responsibilities were in the case. I don't
23 know whether his responsibilities were to make those
24 kinds of judgments or whether his responsibility was
25 simply to make sure that money was paid to each of
www.phi sre orting.com
EFTA02726590

287
1 the people who the FBI had put on the -- the list.
2 I just don't know what his responsibility was.
3 I can say with confidence that he would
4 only act ethically and would, A, not represent --
5 not make any false statements the way your clients
6 made them, and that I wish your clients had the
7 ethics of
8 Q. You then agree that if
9 advanced the claims that I have described in a
10 complaint on behalf of a client, he would not have
11 done so unless he believed those allegations to be
12 true, having conducted a fair and reasonable
13 investigation, correct?
14 MR. SCOTT: Objection, asked and answered
15 several times.
16 A. I don't know the answer to that question
17 because I don't know the context in which he made
18 these arguments. All I do know is that he never
19 would maintain a friendship with me if he believed
20 in any way that I was one of the people that she had
21 accused.
22 BY MR. SCAROLA:
23 Q. Did Alfredo Rodriguez, another one of your
24 friend's staff persons, have a motive to lie against
25 you?
www.phi sre orting.com
EFTA02726591

288
1 A. Alberto Rodriguez --
2 Q. No, sir, Alfredo Rodriguez.
3 A. Alfredo Rodriguez, I never knew him by
4 name. He was, of course, there out -- well outside
5 of the timeframe of the alleged events in this case.
6 And so anything that he would be able to testify to
7 would bear no relationship whatsoever to the -- the
8 allegations here.
9 He was criminally prosecuted, to my
10 memory, for having stolen material and turned it
11 over to Bradley Edwards is my recollection. And as
12 the result of that clearly had a motive to lie. And
13 the same with Mr. Alessi, clearly would have a basis
14 for believing that I may have played a role as
15 Jeffrey Epstein's lawyer in seeking to do harm to
16 him.
17 But again, there's nothing in
18 Mr. Rodriguez's testimony which is in any way
19 inculpatory of me. I think he has me sitting and
20 and reading a book and drinking a glass of wine.
21 Q. In the presence of young women?
22 A. No.
23 Q. No?
24 A. I don't --
25 Q. Do you --
www.phi sre orting.com
EFTA02726592

289
1 A. believe that.
2 Q. -- recall the following testimony --
3 A. It wouldn't be true if he said it.
4 Q. Yes, sir. Well, do you recall the
5 following testimony having been given by Mr. Alfredo
6 Rodriguez in a deposition that was taken on
7 August 7, 2009?
8 "Question: Mr. Rodriguez, you stated last
9 time that there were guests at the house,
10 frequent guests from Harvard. Do you remember
11 that testimony?
12 "Answer: Yes, ma'am.
13 "Question: Was there a lawyer from
14 Harvard named Alan Dershowitz?
15 "Answer: Yes, ma'am.
16 "Question: And are you familiar with the
17 fact that he's a famous author and famous
18 lawyer?
19 "Answer: Yes, ma'am.
20 "Question: How often during the six
21 months or so that you were there was
22 Mr. Dershowitz there?
23 "Answer: Two or three times.
24 "Question: And did you have any knowledge
25 of why he was visiting there?
www.phi sre orting.com
EFTA02726593

290
1 "Answer: No, ma'am.
2 "Question: You don't know whether or not
3 he was a lawyer acting as a lawyer or whether
4 he was there as a friend?
5 "Answer: I believe as a friend.
6 "Question: Were there also young ladies
7 in the house at the time he was there?
8 "Answer: Yes, ma'am.
9 "Question: And would those have included,
10 for instance,
11 "Answer: Yes, ma'am.
12 "Question: Were there other young ladies
13 there when Mr. Dershowitz was there?
14 "Answer: Yes, ma'am.
15 "Question: Do you have any idea who those
16 young women were?
17 "Answer: No, ma'am.
18 "Question: Were there any of these --
19 excuse me. Were any of these young women that
20 you have said came to give massages?
21 "Answer: Yes, ma'am."
22 Do you recall that testimony having been
23 given --
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. -- and those answers having been given to
www.phi sre orting.com
EFTA02726594

291
1 that testimony?
2 A. Yes.
3 MR. SCOTT: Objection. This is totally
4 improper cross examination of a witness by
5 trying to use a deposition. The only purpose
6 of doing this is to interject this into the
7 record, which has no relevance and would not be
8 admissible at trial. And in any case, he never
9 actually has my client doing any of the things
10 that you've accused him of.
11 Go ahead, let's go ahead and do it.
12 Answer the question. Answer the question.
13 MR. SCAROLA: He did.
14 A. Yes, I remember that.
15 MR. SCAROLA: He said yes.
16 A. Yes, I remember that, yes.
17 BY MR. SCAROLA:
18 Q. And do you know why it was that back in
19 19 -- excuse me, back in 2009, August of 2009, four
20 and a half years before you allege that this story
21 about you was being made up out of whole cloth, that
22 lawyers representing Jeffrey Epstein's victims,
23 including from ■
24 office, who had filed the complaint
25 alleging that you had -- excuse me, that
www.phi sre orting.com
EFTA02726595

292
1 had been lent out for sexual purposes to
2 academicians, were asking specific questions about
3 you? Do you know why it was in 2009 they were doing
4 that?
5 A. I have no idea that it happened. And I
6 imagine that they had a list of every academic that
7 was in the house. Probably included --
8 MR. SCOTT: I want to object to this whole
9 procedure because you're taking pieces out of
10 the record and not reading other pieces that
11 totally absolve my client. For example,
12 there's testimony by him that says --
13 MR. SCAROLA: Is this an objection?
14 MR. SCOTT: Yes, it's a statement into the
15 record just like you're putting into the
16 record. There's -- I want to show this to my
17 client and refresh his memory as to some other
18 testimony by this witness --
19 MR. SCAROLA: There's no question pending
20 as to what you can -- as to what you can
21 refresh your client's memory. What you are
22 doing is coaching him.
23 MR. SCOTT: No, I'm not.
24 MR. SCAROLA: Improperly.
25 MR. SCOTT: And you are improperly reading
www.phi sre orting.com
EFTA02726596

293
1 excerpts out of a deposition to try to imply
2 something when there's other parts that totally
3 are inconsistent with that. And if you're
4 going to do that, then he has the ability under
5 our rules to review the entire transcript of
6 the deposition and that's what I'm permitting
7 him to do, just like when we're in court.
8 MR. SCAROLA: What I am doing,
9 Mr. Scott -- what I am doing, Mr. Scott --
10 MR. SCOTT: Have you read that now, sir?
11 MR. SCAROLA: -- is reviewing the evidence
12 that was relied upon by Bradley Edwards and by
13 Paul Cassell in coming to the conclusion that
14 the allegations that had been made by
15 were, in fact, credible allegations.
16 MR. SCOTT: And I'm --
17 MR. SCAROLA: Because your own client has
18 acknowledged that this is information that was
19 available to both him and to them back in 2009.
20 MR. SCOTT: And what I am doing is showing
21 him portions of the same deposition that
22 totally take a different position from this
23 witness from what you have read, so that this
24 record is a complete record and not a partial
25 record with your inference only. And I feel
www.phi sre orting.com
EFTA02726597

294
1 that that's totally appropriate. If we were in
2 a courtroom, a judge would permit him to do it.
3 So you have your position and I have mine.
4 MR. SWEDER: Can we have the witness read
5 that?
6 BY MR. SCAROLA:
7 Q. Do you recall the following testimony
8 having been given in that same deposition?
9 "Question: All right. This is follow-up
10 to questioning by asked
11 you about Mr. Dershowitz being present in
12 Mr. Epstein's home, and I think you said -- I
13 think you said Mr. Epstein and he and
14 Mr. Dershowitz were friends?
15 "Answer: Yes.
16 "Question: She also, I think, asked was
17 Mr. Dershowitz ever there when one of the young
18 women who gave a massage was present in the
19 home.
20 "Answer: I don't remember that.
21 "Question: That's where I want to clear
22 up. Is it your testimony that Mr. Dershowitz
23 was there when any of the women came to
24 Mr. Epstein's home to give a massage?
25 "Answer: Yes."
www.phi sre orting.com
EFTA02726598

295
1 Do you remember that testimony having been
2 given?
3 A. I assume that when your clients used the
4 transcript as a basis for their false conclusion
5 that I was guilty, they read the whole transcripts,
6 not just the --
7 BY MR. SCAROLA:
8
Q. Every word.
9 MR. SCOTT: Don't interrupt him.
10 BY MR. SCAROLA:
11 Q. You don't need to assume that. I will
12 stipulate they read every word.
13 MR. SCOTT: Mr. Scarola, he's speaking.
14 You don't have a right to do this.
15 A. And if you read every word, you will see
16 that it's totally exculpatory, that I have no idea
17 whether there were any young women in one part of
18 the house when I was in another part of the house.
19 It's completely consistent with my testimony that I
20 have never seen any underage women. Let's see.
21 And if you read the whole transcript,
22 you'll see, I think:
23 "Was Dershowitz ever there when one of the
24 woman gave a massage?
25 "I don't remember that.
www.phi sre orting.com
EFTA02726599

296
1 "Were you in -- were you in any way
2 attempting in your response to imply that
3 Mr. Dershowitz had a massage by one of these
4 young ladies?
5 "I don't know, sir.
6 "You have no knowledge?
7 "No, sir.
8 "And you certainly weren't implying that
9 that occurred; you just have no knowledge,
10 correct?
11 "Answer: I don't know."
12 And I would hope that your clients would
13 be reading the whole thing in context, unlike what
14 you've tried to do to try to create a false
15 impression that this testimony in any way exculpates
16 me.
17 I have to say if this is what they relied
18 on, my confirmation of their unethical and
19 unprofessional conduct has been strongly
20 corroborated by that and you're helping my case.
21 BY MR. SCAROLA:
22 Q. Would it have been reasonable for Bradley
23 Edwards and Paul Cassell to have relied upon the
24 detailed reports of Palm Beach police department?
25 A. I don't know. I don't know what the Palm
www.phi sre orting.com
EFTA02726600

297
1 Beach police department says.
2 Q. You never read those reports?
3 A. I don't know which reports you're
4 referring to.
5 Q. All of the reports about Jeffrey Epstein.
6 MR. SCOTT: Asked and answered yesterday
7 on this whole line.
8
A. I probably did not read all the reports on
9 Jeffrey Epstein. I'm sure I've read some of them.
10 I do not recall --
11 MR. SCOTT: Be careful about any work --
12 attorney-client privilege.
13 THE WITNESS: Right.
14 A. I don't remember my name coming up. I was
15 the lawyer during that period of time.
16 BY MR. SCAROLA:
17 Q. To the extent that Bradley Edwards and
18 Paul Cassell relied upon detailed reports from the
19 Palm Beach police department in order to assess the
20 credibility of , would it be
21 reasonable for them to rely upon police reports?
22 A. I would hope that they would rely on all
23 the police reports, including the ones that showed
24 that
25
www.phi sre orting.com
EFTA02726601

298
1
2 I would hope they would look at all the
3 reports, not just selected portions of those
4 reports.
5 Q. Would that include the reports of the
6 Federal Bureau of Investigation?
7 A. I would hope so.
8 Q. Would that include the information
9 provided by the U.S. Attorney's Office?
10 A. I would sure hope so, and I could tell you
11 that the
12 Q. Would that include --
13 A. Let me just say that the U.S. Attorney's
14 Office has told me unequivocally that my name never
15 came up in any context of any accusation against me
16 during the negotiations.
17 Q. Is this part of your work product that
18 you're waiving right now?
19 MR. SWEDER: No, no.
20 A. My conversation with is not
21 work product.
22 MR. SCOTT: Here's a
23 BY MR. SCAROLA:
24 Q. What is the work product --
25 MR. SCOTT: Excuse me. Please review
www.phi sre orting.com
EFTA02726602

299
1 this.
2 A. Excuse me one second.
3 MR. SCOTT: You know, you think this is
4 funny and I think this man's -- and I think
5 this man's --
6 MR. SCAROLA: I think it's improper for
7 you to be coaching the witness in the middle of
8
examination. If you think that there's
9 something that needs to be brought out, you do
10 that in cross examination. You don't feed him
11 information that you want him to be reading in
12 the middle of my examination of this witness.
13 MR. SCOTT: No. But it's also true that
14 under our rules, when you read portions of a
15 deposition, he has the ability to read other
16 portions of the deposition which clarify the
17 answers. That's done in every courtroom on
18 every time a witness -- you have selected
19 portions of it that are not accurate based on
20 other portions and I am having him review them
21 since you did not offer him the deposition to
22 review.
23 MR. SCAROLA: And that's what you do --
24 MR. SCOTT: And I think that's totally
25 proper --
www.phi sre orting.com
EFTA02726603