Brief opposing Alan Dershowitz's motion to intervene, arguing flight logs were incomplete

EFTA00191437¶

information Dershowitz provided to police was incomplete. A comparison of the flight manifests and logs confirms that the flight logs provided by Rogers were also incomplete. A cursory review of both logs reveals that together the logs produced cover only a small fraction of the flights taken and the passengers on board. While this is obvious for multiple reasons, a few examples may help to make this point. For instance, the flight records provided by Dershowitz for a February 3, 2005, flight from CMH (Columbus, Ohio) to PBI (Palm Beach, Florida), indicate that in addition to Jeffrey Epstein, Sarah Kellen, Nadia Marcinkova, and Jean Luc Brunel, on board were three “females.” The existence of these three “females” is conspicuously absent from the Rogers’ logs.¶

Compare Composite Exhibit 25 with Composite Exhibit 26 (Rodgers Logs). Other flights, such as the March 18, 2005 flight from New York to Florida, taken by Maxwell, Epstein and Dana Burns are missing altogether from the Rogers logs. Likewise, flights that appear on the Rogers logs are missing from the logs produced by Dershowitz. Multiple examples lead to the clear conclusion that all produced logs are incomplete and may well have been heavily sanitized. For example, on February 9, 1998, Dershowitz flew on Epstein’s private plane from Palm Beach, Florida, to Teterboro, New Jersey. One of the passengers is listed as “1 female.” Exhibit 27. Who is that “female” – and what is her age? Similarly, Jane Doe No. 3 appears on a July 16, 2001, flight from Santa Fe, New Mexico to Teterboro, New Jersey, along with Epstein, Maxwell and Emmy Tayler. Yet there is no earlier flight that would have landed Jane Doe No. 3 in New Mexico. According to the logs, the next flight is from Palm Beach to the U.S. Virgin Islands on July 23, 2001, although Jane Doe No. 3 does not appear. The impression is that she remained in the New Jersey area. However, on July 28, 2001, Jane Doe No. 3 is on a flight with Epstein from the Virgin Islands back to Palm Beach. See Exhibit 26. How did she get to the Virgin Islands?¶

36¶

EFTA00191438¶

The flight logs provide evidence of some of the individuals who were on some of the flights - nothing more. Accordingly, it would not be surprising to find that some of these flight logs do not mention Dershowitz, because they were likely designed to hide evidence of criminal activity – or perhaps later cleansed of such evidence. With that said, some interesting things do appear in the flight logs. Unlike any other of Epstein’s numerous criminal defense attorneys, Dershowitz appears in the flight logs for flights on Epstein’s private planes produced by pilot Rogers on numerous occasions. Dershowitz also appears on flights with various females, including Epstein’s known procurer of underage girls, Sarah Kellen. And, in contrast to recent media suggestions by Dershowitz, his family does not appear on any of the flights with him.¶

Jane Doe No. 3 is listed on the logs as a passenger at a time when she is under age 18. While the logs do not show Dershowitz on the same flight with her, it is abundantly clear that the logs do not contain evidence of all of the flights that she was on and that they are grossly incomplete. The flight logs do confirm that she was transported by Epstein to Florida, New York, London, New Mexico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands – locations where she states under oath that Epstein forced her to have sex with various individuals, including Dershowitz.¶

Finally, in Dershowitz’s vociferous attacks on Jane Doe No. 3, the Court will see an eerie parallel to the Jeffrey Epstein criminal investigation. Back in 2005, when the Palm Beach Police Department was first investigating Epstein’s sexual abuse, it interviewed more than a dozen minor girls. These girls all provided information about abuse similar to the abuse that Jane Doe No. 3 says she suffered in Florida. The Department accumulated overwhelming evidence placing underage girls at Epstein’s residence with no obvious legal purpose. The logical explanation was that these young girls were being truthful when they told law enforcement that Epstein (and others) were sexually abusing them.¶

37¶

EFTA00191439¶

Rather than acknowledge sexual abuse of these girls, Dershowitz blustered down to Florida to meet with the State Attorney and to viciously attack the credibility of these victims – to call them liars, defame them as prostitutes, and convince the State Attorney that these girls could not even believably establish that they had ever even gone to Epstein’s mansion. See, e.g., Depo. of Police Chief Michael Reiter at 53-55, 102-06, B.B. Epstein, No. 502008CA037319 XXXX-MB-AB (Palm Beach Cty. Cir. Ct. Nov. 23, 2009) (excerpts attached as Exhibit 28); see also Depo. of Police Detective Joe Recarey at 301-302 and 309-10, Jane Doe No. 2. Epstein, No. 9:08-cv-80119-KAM (S.D. Fla. Mar. 19, 2010) (excerpts attached as Exhibit 29) Later, Dershowitz would write to tell the Justice Department that “Epstein never targeted minors.” Letter from Gerald Lefcourt & Alan Dershowitz, July 6, 2007 to U.S. Atty.’s Office for the S.D. Fla (attached as Exhibit 30). Now, nearly a decade later, there should be no doubt in anyone’s mind that the minor girls who cooperated with the authorities told the truth about their sexual abuse inside Epstein’s home — and that Dershowitz’s attack on their credibility was duplicitous. In fact, according to credible eyewitness testimony recounted above, Dershowitz was clearly present in the home while some of these girls were being abused. The Court should not allow Dershowitz’s similar bullying tactics to succeed in this case.33¶

CONCLUSION¶

Dershowitz’s motion for intervention (DE 282) should be denied.¶

33 In the media, Dershowitz has said that he will prove that Jane Doe No. 3 is lying “beyond any doubt by physical and documentary evidence.” The Last Word with O’Donnell – MSNBC (Jan. 8, 2015) http://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/watch/alan-dershowitz-on-allegations—totally-false-¶

381942851573. The Court should compare this media assertion with the materials that Dershowitz files along with his reply brief.¶

38¶

EFTA00191440¶

DATED: January 21, 2015¶

Respectfully Submitted,¶

Bradley J. Edwards¶

FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING,¶

EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L.¶

425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2¶

Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301¶

Telephone (954) 524-2820¶

Facsimile (954) 524-2822¶

E-mail: brad@pathtojustice.com ¶

and¶

Paul G. Cassell

Pro Hac Vice

S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah*

332 S. 1400 E.

Salt Lake City, UT 84112

Telephone: 801-585-5202

Facsimile: 801-585-6833

E-Mail: cassellp@law.utah.edu

Attorneys for Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2¶

This daytime business address is provided for identification and correspondence purposes only and is not intended to imply institutional endorsement by the University of Utah

39¶

EFTA00191441¶