Jane Doe #3 Strikes Back at Dershowitz

Virginia Roberts, aka Jane Doe #3 and Jane Doe #102, has filed an Affidavit in support of her allegations that she had sex with Alan Dershowitz while she was under the age of 18. The article contains a link to the Affidavit. [More...]

The Affidavit is one of 30 exhibits her lawyers filed with their 40 page response opposing Dershowitz's request to intervene in the lawsuit Jane Does #1 and #2 filed against the Government. (Jane Does #1 and #2 want to void the feds' agreement not to prosecute Jeffrey Epstein if he complied with the requirements of his state court plea deal, which included jail time, and compensation to the victims and payment of their legal fees.)

Everyone can read the salacious allegations for themselves. I'm more interested in her lawyers' assertion that the allegations in her affidavit are corroborated by other witnesses and evidence, and in any inconsistencies. Despite their 29 other exhibits, all of which I've now read, I'm not seeing the corroboration. This isn’t to say her allegations are false. I have no idea whether she or Dershowitz is telling the truth. I’m talking about whether she has provided any proof of her claims.

Roberts claims in her affidavit she had sex with Dershowitz at least six times, starting when she was "about 16...and it continued until I was 19." She lists five (not six) instances.

  • The first time we had sex took place in New York in Epstein’s home. It was in Epstein’s room (not the massage room). I was approximately 16 years old at the time.
  • The second time...was at Epstein’s house in Palm Beach.
  • [A]t Epstein’s Zorro Ranch in New Mexico in the massage room off of the indoor pool area, which was still being painted
  • [A]t Little Saint James Island in the U.S. Virgin Islands.
  • [O]n Epstein’s airplane. Another girl was present on the plane with us.

Her lawyers included deposition transcripts of two “eyewitnesses”, both employees of Epstein. One was employed for 6 months in 2004-2005. Roberts left Epstein for Thailand and Australia in 2002, so he provides no corroboration of Roberts' claims as to Dershowitz. (He was later convicted of obstruction of justice for stealing Epstein's journal and trying to sell it to the media, and sentenced to 18 months. He is now deceased.)

The second eyewitness cited by Roberts' lawyers is Juan Alessi, who worked for Epstein at the same time Roberts worked for him. This is what her lawyers write:

He started working for Epstein in about January 1999. He testified that Jane Doe No. 3 was one of the girls who came to Epstein’s mansion regularly when she was in the age range of 15 to 19. (My emphasis.)

As evidence for this assertion, the lawyers cite Exhibit 18, which contains excerpts of Alessi's deposition. They specifically cite (page and line) 46:21- 47:4 and 48:18-25. Here's what those pages say:

21 Q. How old did you think V.R. was at the time she
22 began coming to Mr. Epstein's home?
23 A. She could have been 17, 18, 19.
24 Q. Could she have also been 15?
1 Could have been. But, you know,
2 I am not -- I don't think I am a very good judge of
3 ages. If you ask me how old you are, I really
4 couldn't tell you.

A few lines later, Alessi adds:

7 THE WITNESS: Now, again, I must tell you, I
8 was never told to check any i.d.s on any of the
9 people who work at the house.

And a few lines later, he says the only underage girl he remembers is the one who became a famous actress, and she wasn't a massage therapist. He says he knows she was underage because he used to pick her up at high school. He says that's the only underage girl he remembers.

This excerpt does not match her lawyers' description. Alessi said she could have been 17 to 19. Her lawyer asked if she could have been 15. He said she could have been but he didn't know and he's not a good judge of age.

The lawyers' second selection from Alessi’s deposition doesn't reference age at all. Alessi says he's the one who drove Maxwell to Mar A Lago the day she first met Roberts. There's no discussion of age in the excerpt.

18 Q. Did you assume that she was a massage
19 therapist because you were told she was coming to give a
20 massage?
21 A. No. I assumed she was a massage therapy
22 because I was -- I drove Ms. Maxwell to Mar-a-lago,
23 Donald Trump's residence. And I wait in the car while
24 Ms. Maxwell got a -- I think it was a facial or massage.
25 I don't know. But that day I remember this girl, V.,

She doesn't provide dates for any encounters with Dershowitz, she just says she was "about 16" when the first one happened, and she was 19 the last time. Her affidavit confirms she was born in August, 1983. She would have turned 19 in August, 2002. She says she was 19 when she left for Thailand in September, 2002 and she never returned to work for Epstein. So she is saying under penalty of perjury that she last had sex with Dershowitz sometime between August, 2002 and September of 2002. It can't be that difficult to determine whether she and Dershowitz were at the same place at the same time during a one month period. If they weren't, I personally think it casts doubt on all of her allegations against him.

I’ve also mentioned previously that a man named Anthony Figueroa from Colorado was recently interviewed by the British press. The Sun has this picture of the couple. The Daily Mail reports he said he was her boyfriend the last 18 months she was with Epstein before she left for Thailand. He says they talked about having kids together but broke up after he read her diary with all her secrets.

The father-of-one said he dated Miss Roberts for around 18 months and they spoke about having children, but split when he read her diary extracts detailing her distressing secrets. The last time he saw her was when Epstein sent to her to a massage school in Thailand, he added.

He also said she only worked for Epstein two weeks a month during their time together. If true, that further narrows the possible time period she and Dershowitz were in the same place at the same time when she was 19 to two weeks.

The remainder of the lawyers' response contains no other "corroboration" as to Roberts' claims she had sex with Dershowitz. Instead they provide smokescreens about his behavior years later and draw inferences from that.

After detailing some flight records, the lawyers admit they have have not found any showing Roberts and Dershowitz ever flew on the same plane. In a deposition excerpt they attach as an exhibit, a police officer testifies the airport doesn't keep records of passengers on private planes. Her lawyers were able to obtain one page of flight manifests for the period 1997 to 1998 (which Dershowitz had provided years ago to the officer) and 8 pages of others from one of Epstein's pilots, covering the years 1997 to 2005. They then allege that Dershowitz may have destroyed some flight records to protect himself. Their accusation is not the equivalent of corroboration.

One example: Her lawyers make a big deal of a flight record from 1998. Roberts has been giving interviews using her real name since 2011. A more detailed version is here. She told the Daily Mail then that Epstein didn't start lending her out to other men for sex until the second year she was with him. That would be 2000, at the earliest. Yet, they write:

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?

Roberts says she was born in August, 1983. Since Roberts now says didn't begin working for Epstein until 1999, when she was 15, and she would have been 14 at the time of this flight in February 1998, what difference does it make who that female was? It couldn't have been Roberts.

Roberts states on the occasion she flew on Epstein’s plane with Dershowitz and had sex with him, another girl was present. She doesn't say the girl participated in sex. The name of the girl is blocked out. Her lawyers claim in their answer the girl was not only was present, but participated in the sex with Roberts and Dershowitz. They say this girl was over 18 but for privacy reasons, they aren't disclosing her name. Why doesn't Roberts version match her lawyers' version? Observing others have sex and participating in it are two different things.

Roberts' and her lawyers’ failure to include dates for any of the alleged episodes with Dershowitz is troubling. Previously, I've noted that while Roberts said in her Complaint against Epstein that she began working for Epstein in 1998, her lawyers have said in pleadings it was 1999. She now says in her Affidavit that it was 1999. ("I visited and traveled with Jeffrey Epstein from 1999 through the summer of 2002.)

Her civil complaint against Epstein filed in 2009 claimed she began working for him in the summer of 1998. From her Complaint:

A vulnerable young girl, Plaintiff was working as a changing room assistant at The Mar-A-Lago Club in Palm Beach making approximately $9 an hour when she was first lured into Defendant's sexually exploitative world. In or about the summer of 1998, when Plaintiff was merely fifteen years old while attending to her duties at Mar-A-Lago, Plaintiff was recruited by Ghislaine Maxwell, who lived, traveled, socialized, and worked with Defendant. Ms. Maxwell asked Plaintiff if she was interested in learning massage therapy and earning a great deal of money while learning the profession.

Plaintiffs father, who was a maintenance manager at The Mar-A-Lago Club, was not apprehensive because he felt comforted that an older woman had approached Plaintiff with this opportunity. As a result, Plaintiff's father dropped off Plaintiff at Defendant's mansion that same day. Ms. Maxwell met Plaintiff and her father outside of Defendant's Palm Beach mansion, where Ms. Maxwell assured the minor girl's father that Ms. Maxwell would provide transportation home for his teenaged daughter.

Roberts is equally vague about her age at the time of her encounters with Prince Andrew. While she claims she was 17 the first two times, she says in her Affidavit:

The third time I had sex with Andy was in an orgy on Epstein’s private island in the U.S. Virgin Islands. I was around 18 at the time. Epstein, Andy, approximately eight other young girls, and I had sex together. The other girls all seemed and appeared to be under the age of 18 and didn’t really speak English. (My emphasis.)

“Around 18?” When someone claims an adult had sex with her while she was a minor, shouldn't she at least be able to state under oath she was under 18? In earlier interviews with the Daily Mail, she has said she was over 18 during the third encounter with Andrew (while her lawyers, in their Dec. 30 motion to intervene, said she was under 18 at the time of all three encounters with Andrew.) A year matters.

In her affidavit, she provides this photo to show how young she looked in 1999 at age 15.

The Daily Mail has this photo of her in 1998 at her mother's house.

She looks much younger at age 15 or 16 in 1999 than she did at age 14 in 1998. How to explain the difference? She has said Epstein dressed her to make her look like a little girl. Epstein took the 1999 little girl photo of her. It's impossible to tell what she really looked like when she started working for him, but if she was 14 in her the photo taken at her mother's house in 1998, the photo Epstein took in 1999 seems contrived to make her look younger.

The lawyers also attach (as Exhibit 16) an old document submitted by Roberts' lawyer Bradley Edwards in 2010 in a prior civil suit between Epstein and Edwards, called “Undisputed Statement of Facts.” The court in that case denied lawyer Edwards' motion for summary judgment. (the Order is here.) These were not "undisputed facts" but lawyer Edwards' version of the facts.

[Added: Gawker has obtained 73 pages of flight logs and published them here. The logs were attached as an exhibit to the "Statement of Undisputed Facts" in the lawsuit between Epstein and Jane Doe #3's lawyer.]

I'll end with this inconsistency. The Government says in its response filed January 20 opposing Roberts’ motion to join the lawsuit of Jane Does #1 and #2 that her request is outside the statute of limitations. Her lawyers respond with this:

Jane Doe No. 3 will contest whether that statute of limitations even applies. But Jane Doe also intends to raise an equitable estoppel argument – that the statute was tolled while she was in hiding in Australia due to the danger posed by Epstein and his powerful friends. Her factual allegations – including the specific identities of those powerful persons – are clearly relevant to demonstrating the factual underpinnings for her estoppel argument.

Hiding in Australia due to the danger of Epstein and is powerful friends? Attached to the Government’s response is a partial transcript of a 2011 telephone conference call between her, her lawyer and her lawyer’s lawyer, which was filed in the state case in which Epstein sued her lawyer (Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 290-3). In it, she described her leaving Epstein this way:

[H]e sent me to Thailand, in September 2002. I was first supposed to meet a girl there and bring her back with me, but I never met up with her. I proceeded get a short course in Thai massage so that was to shut me up about my training so I went there, and one of my friends from school invited me to watch a fight, like a muay thai fight, which is like a form [of] kickboxing. So I went and watched it, and I saw this guy that was a really good fighter, and a girl’s word, looked really hot, so I asked my friend who knew him to introduce me.

We got introduced and fell in love immediately, 3 days later proposed and 7 days later I was being married in a buddist [sic] temple. I called Jeffrey and told him I’m sorry, I’m never coming back. I’ve gotten married, I’ve fallen in love. I thought he’d wish the best for me but he was kind of rude and he just said “have a good life” and hung up the phone, and that was the last time I’d talked to him ever until all this started again.

I don't recall her ever saying she stayed in Australia from 2002 on because of fear of Epstein. She and her husband chose to live there. In 2009, after having had contact with authorities she wasn't afraid to file her civil lawsuit for damages. Or to have her lawyer participate in the depositions of witnesses. Or to grant interviews to the British media using her real name, starting in 2011. Personally, I don’t find her lawyers’ argument that statute of limitations should be tolled for the years she was in Australia because she was in fear and hiding persuasive.

The Government also points out she told her lawyers in the recorded conversation that the FBI telephoned her in 2007 to discuss the Epstein investigation, and she told them she didn't want to be contacted again. (It wasn't until she got the notice in 2008 informing her she could sue and would be provided a lawyer that she apparently changed her mind.)

I think Dershowitz will lose his motion to intervene in the civil suit because since filing it, a separate libel suit has been filed in state court, so he has another forum to litigate the allegations. I think the Judge should deny her request to intervene in the Jane Doe lawsuit because of the statute of limitations. She has been represented by counsel since 2009 and filed other court actions. She collected damages in 2010 from Epstein. Her lawyer could joined her in this lawsuit years ago, but chose not to. That seems to me to have been a strategic decision.

Also today, Prince Andrew came out and personally denied her allegations.

As for former President Clinton, Roberts goes out of her way in her affidavit to clear him. She writes:

I have seen reports saying or implying that I had sex with former President Bill Clinton on Little Saint James Island. Former President Bill Clinton was present on the Island at a time when I was also present on the Island, but I have never had sexual relations with Clinton, nor have I ever claimed to have had such relations. I have never seen him have sexual relations with anyone.

Most libel cases seem to settle quietly, long after the initial filing, with the terms sealed. I doubt this one will be much different. For right now, we have a classic "He said, She said" and people will believe who they want to believe.

< Thursday Open Thread | Tsarnaev Trial Start Delayed, New Battle Over Venue >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    yup, pretty much. (none / 0) (#1)
    by cpinva on Thu Jan 22, 2015 at 11:22:00 PM EST
    "For right now, we have a classic "He said, She said" and people will believe who they want to believe."

    her lawyer's filings are pretty thin gruel, to base an entire case on. conceivably, dershowitz might cave, and pay her something, just to shut her up and make it go away, but I wouldn't go betting the rent money on it. should this actually go to trial, cross is going to expose a whole lot of "I can't remember the exact date, but it was around this time" from her. I doubt that's going to hold much sway with a judge or jury, given the allegations she's made.

    Now they have the flight logs (none / 0) (#2)
    by Uncle Chip on Fri Jan 23, 2015 at 08:34:09 AM EST
    Without quotation marks.... (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by unitron on Sat Jan 24, 2015 at 05:59:39 AM EST
    ...around "Flight logs reveal the many trips Bill Clinton and Alan Dershowitz took on pedophile Jeffrey Epstein's private jet with anonymous women", you make it unclear whether it is just The Daily Mail that doesn't know or doesn't care about the actual definition of "pedophile" or whether that extends to you as well.

    None the less (none / 0) (#10)
    by Slado on Sat Jan 24, 2015 at 06:19:14 AM EST
    How does this type of behavior by Bill not become an issue in the coming months heading into 2016?

    Knowing Bill as we have come to wouldn't we surmise there are going to be more tabloid stories to come?

    How does Hillary deal with this crap?  I think she should dump his ass but that's just me.  


    After reading the whole article (none / 0) (#11)
    by Slado on Sat Jan 24, 2015 at 06:35:40 AM EST
    This seems like headline smearing against Bill.  

    I'd still have dumped him if I was Hillary though.


    Well (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jan 24, 2015 at 08:27:35 AM EST
    if I was Laura Bush I would have dumped George W. too. Who know why these things happen and some people stay together and some do not.

    I don't think the two are comparable (none / 0) (#15)
    by Slado on Sat Jan 24, 2015 at 10:23:11 AM EST
    You'll be surprised to know I really feel bad for Hillary.

    She has been put in a terrible positions by her Husbands infidelity and I would never pass judgement on how she chooses  to handle it because it's a very personal choice.  I cringe when Republicans use it as some sort of tool against her.

    But I think Bill is just a bad guy on this personal level for having repeatedly embarrassed her over the years on such a public stage.    how else can you look at it?  I can't imagine the pain this ihas put her through.   Most women wouldn't put up with it that but it's her choice.


    Actually (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jan 24, 2015 at 10:44:02 AM EST
    I saw a window into the Bush marriage when Laura was on Oprah of all places. Oprah kept putting forth some of the criticisms of George W. that were out there and Laura made excuse after excuse for W. It reminded me of people who are married to alcoholics and call in sick for them to work when they're too drunk to show up.

    Hillary never made excuses but obviously it was painful for her and she has even admitted as much.  Both she and Laura made their choices. And having an affair is not the only way to damage your spouse. For some reason a lot of people only look at cheating through the prism of sex. A friend of mine has a husband that cheats with money. It's the same feeling as if had an affair.

    But I know why the GOP comes down on her for that and it's because many conservatives believe that if a husband cheats it is the fault of the wife.


    If my husband homesteads with (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jan 24, 2015 at 10:58:39 AM EST
    A coke dealer and his prostitute girlfriend, IT IS OVER :)

    Do you think the Bushes would have allowed the twins to grow up denied a privileged childhood?  Why did she stay?  It couldn't be for the stimulating conversation or admiration for how he productively uses his charisma on the road to a better world for all :)


    Would she be the front runner (none / 0) (#13)
    by NYShooter on Sat Jan 24, 2015 at 10:18:11 AM EST
    for next year's Presidential election had she "dumped Bill" years ago?

    Who knows? She might have locked up the (none / 0) (#14)
    by Mr Natural on Sat Jan 24, 2015 at 10:21:45 AM EST
    P.O.ed wife vote.

    Yes I do (none / 0) (#16)
    by Slado on Sat Jan 24, 2015 at 10:24:56 AM EST
    I think at this point he can only be a drag if he keeps up his shenanigans or more come out.

    He's been globetrotting around the world for the last decade with the foundation. Lord knows what he's been up to.

    I voted for the guy twice you know. And in retrospect he did a pretty damn good job. But on this he is a scumbag and I actually feel sorry for Hillary that she's had to put up with him.


    Well (none / 0) (#19)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jan 24, 2015 at 10:50:27 AM EST
    don't you think that Hillary knows that the GOP is going to try to go there and that she's been through everything with a fine tooth comb?

    And even this latest thing with him being on the plane with Epstein is 20 years ago.

    And I believe Derschowitz became a Bush supporter. So i'm not sure the GOP is going to go there with this kind of stuff.


    Do you really think Bill (none / 0) (#21)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jan 24, 2015 at 12:07:30 PM EST
    Shook his britches off during a flight with Kevin Spacey and Chris Tucker?  I'm just not seeing it.  Hey, why isn't Kevin Spacey and Chris Tucker being smeared too?

    Well no I dont (none / 0) (#22)
    by Slado on Sat Jan 24, 2015 at 02:16:54 PM EST
    But there were other flights and when you run with a certain crowd well...

    But maybe on the other hand Bill had been a good boy because he knows his wife has got a great shot at the presidency and he wouldn't want to screw that up....;)


    You really Kevin Spacey is in they crowd (none / 0) (#23)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jan 24, 2015 at 03:01:39 PM EST
    You're implying?  Do you know who he is?

    I know who he is (none / 0) (#24)
    by Slado on Sat Jan 24, 2015 at 07:43:57 PM EST
    He wasn't on 11 flights.   Plus he's gay isn't he?

    He also did a great job on my call of duty video game.


    Rollo Tamasi (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Mr Natural on Sat Jan 24, 2015 at 08:14:31 PM EST
    L.A. Confidential

    The affidavit (none / 0) (#3)
    by Reconstructionist on Fri Jan 23, 2015 at 08:50:54 AM EST
     is not offered in support of an action filed by Doe 3 as plaintiff with Dershowitz as defendant. The procedural contest is convoluted but must be kept in mind when assessing the moves.

      This affidavit is  offered to support a response opposing Derhowitz's motion to intervene in the pending  case Does 1 and 2 have filed against the government. In that action Does 1 and 2 allege the government violated the Crime Victims' Rights Act and that as a remedy they are entitled to have the court order that the deal Epstein entered (no federal charges if plead in Florida State Court, etc) ne rescinded. (As an aside, I doubt this will ultimately be found an available remedy regardless of whatever else happens).  

      Does 3 and 4 filed a motion for joinder as plaintiffs in the pending action against the government and in support of that motion Doe 3 made the contested allegations concerning Dershowitz. He then requested permission to intervening the action for the limited purpose of having the allegations against him stricken from the record because they are both false and irrelevant to any claim in the underlying action. (On the merits, the irrelevancy would seem a strong argument, even if the allegations were true--  but should Dershowitz be allowed to intervene to raise that argument?)

      Beyond that, one other purpose of the filing is likely to buttress the claim that Doe 3's lawyers did not go off quarter cocked without a good faith basis for including the factual allegations in the motion for joinder. One can expect a highly similar filing in the libel case Dershowitz has brought against the lawyers (and if necessary in any Bar disciplinary proceedings.

       If this was all just intended to get money from Dershowitz, it would be thin gruel, but it's more complicated than that.


    my post states the (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Jan 23, 2015 at 11:31:51 AM EST
    context of the filing and the case history, as do my prior extensive posts on this. No one has said she was seeking money.

    I realize my post is long, but neither I nor anyone else here has suggested the affidavit was offered in support of an action filed by Doe 3 as plaintiff with Dershowitz as defendant.

    The first paragraph of my post states:

    bq. The Affidavit is one of 30 exhibits her lawyers filed with their 40 page response opposing Dershowitz's request to intervene in the lawsuit Jane Does #1 and #2 filed against the Government which seeks to void the feds' agreement not to prosecute Jeffrey Epstein....

    The response to which the Affidavit was attached is a actually a combined response to both Dershowitz's request to intervene and the Government's opposition to Jane Doe#3's request to intervene in the lawsuit. Jane Doe's attorneys requested permission to respond to both in a single pleading, and the Court granted the request.


    I was replying to cpinva's post (none / 0) (#5)
    by Reconstructionist on Fri Jan 23, 2015 at 11:34:39 AM EST
      not your post.

    ok, I appreciate that. (none / 0) (#7)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Jan 23, 2015 at 04:40:38 PM EST
    No problem (none / 0) (#8)
    by Reconstructionist on Fri Jan 23, 2015 at 04:44:05 PM EST
     I sometimes (often) forget to hit reply to post instead of reply to thread.

    The other girl... (none / 0) (#6)
    by lentinel on Fri Jan 23, 2015 at 12:19:31 PM EST
    On Epstein's airplane. Another girl was present on the plane with us.

    It seems to me that if there was "another girl" on the plane, she would be an important and possibly conclusive witness.

    As an aside, except for the proverbial threesome, or some somewhat freaky voyeuristic scenario,  I don't really know how someone could be a witness to a coupling...


    Who was the "another girl" (name blocked out) on the plane when one of these alleged incidents was going down, and is she willing to testify?

    In any case, Epstein seems like a piece of work.

    regarding this case, and its actors, (none / 0) (#17)
    by Mr Natural on Sat Jan 24, 2015 at 10:32:19 AM EST
    and all their desperately defended innocence, I remember that line from Chinatown...

    Noah Cross: "I don't blame myself. You see, Mr. Gittes, most people never have to face the fact that at the right time and the right place, they're capable of ANYTHING."

    Epstein's Little Black Book: (none / 0) (#26)
    by Mr Natural on Mon Jan 26, 2015 at 10:11:09 AM EST
    is Described here in a Gawker article.

    An annotated copy of the address book, which also contains entries for Alec Baldwin, Ralph Fiennes, Griffin Dunne, New York Post gossip Richard Johnson, Ted Kennedy, David Koch, filmmaker Andrew Jarecki, and all manner of other people you might expect a billionaire to know, turned up in court proceedings after Epstein's former house manager Alfredo Rodriguez tried to sell it in 2009. About 50 of the entries, including those of many of Epstein's suspected victims and accomplices as well as Trump, Love, Barak, Dershowitz, and others, were circled by Rodriguez. (The existence of the book has been previously reported by the Daily Mail. Gawker is publishing it in full here for the first time;