Skip to main content
Skip to content
Case File
d-28559House OversightOther

Allegations that Alan Dershowitz Provided Incomplete or Falsified Flight Logs to Law‑Enforcement in the Jeffrey Epstein Investigation

The passage supplies concrete, time‑stamped allegations that a high‑profile attorney (Alan Dershowitz) selectively produced flight‑log records covering Jan‑Sep 2005 while omitting an Oct 2005 log, and Selective production of flight logs covering Jan‑Sep 2005, excluding an Oct 2005 log. Inconsistencies between Dershowitz‑provided logs and pilot Dave Rogers’ logs. Testimony that the logs may have be

Date
November 11, 2025
Source
House Oversight
Reference
House Oversight #010850
Pages
3
Persons
1
Integrity
No Hash Available

Summary

The passage supplies concrete, time‑stamped allegations that a high‑profile attorney (Alan Dershowitz) selectively produced flight‑log records covering Jan‑Sep 2005 while omitting an Oct 2005 log, and Selective production of flight logs covering Jan‑Sep 2005, excluding an Oct 2005 log. Inconsistencies between Dershowitz‑provided logs and pilot Dave Rogers’ logs. Testimony that the logs may have be

Persons Referenced (1)

Tags

jeffrey-epsteinsex-traffickinglaw-enforcementdocument-falsificationsextrafficking-investigationobstruction-of-justicealan-dershowitzlegal-exposuremoderate-importancehouse-oversightflight-logs

Ask AI About This Document

0Share
PostReddit

Extracted Text (OCR)

EFTA Disclosure
Text extracted via OCR from the original document. May contain errors from the scanning process.
00:34:42 00:34:46 00:34:47 00:34:49 00:34:52 00:34:57 00:35:01 On An pA © hw 00:35:04 © 00:38:08 ooas0s 10 ooss11 11 coasts 12 ooss:ia 13 ooas22 14 ooas2e 15 00:38:31 16 ooss:3s 17 oo3s39 18 oo3sa1 19 oo35:45 20 oossas 24 oo3saa 22 00:35:52 23 oossss 24 oosss7 25 00:35:59 00:36:03 00:36:05 00:36:08 00:36:12 00:36:15 00:36:19 00:36:22 Oo ON A OH & WO PD «> 00:36:26 00:36.29 10 oose33 11 003638 12 003642 13 oo:3646 14 ooz64e 15 oo3600 16 003654 17 00:36:55 18 003658 19 ova703 20 oo3703 21 oos70s 22 oo37.08 23 coaz1s 24 coaris 25 188 enforcement agency to provide flight logs relevant to this investigation. And rather than providing all the flight logs that were available at that time, he appears to have provided flight logs that went from January 2005 through September 2005, knowing that he appeared on an October -- I may be off by one month here -- but on an October 2005 flight log. So that, to my mind, had indicated that Professor Dershowitz was providing selective information to law enforcement. Those concerns -- this is, you know, there's -~ there's more to it. The other problem was that the flight logs that Mr. Dershowitz had produced were inconsistent with the flight logs that Dave Rogers, one of Mr. Epstein's pilots had, so there were now inconsistencies on these flight logs. And it seemed to be -- it seemed to me to be surprising that during the period of time where [REDACTED] was involved, Mr. Dershowitz was not appearing on those flight logs. Now, it is possible, I suppose, and that seems to be Mr. Dershowitz's position, that the reason he's not on those flight logs is that he was not on those flights. But given all of the information -- and I won't take your time this morning to go through -- all ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 189 the information I had about this international sex trafficking organization, it seemed to me that it was also possible that the sex trafficking organization, which was represented by, you know, vast resources and the ability to produce witnesses and documents and other information that would -- would cover up the existence of this organization, had gone through the flight logs and had made necessary alterations to -~- to conceal the scope of -- of the -- of the operation. In addition to that, when I started to compare the Dave Rogers' flight logs with the David -- excuse me. I am going to get a drink. When I started to compare the -- oh, I'm sorry. I should be looking at the camera. When I started -- when I started to compare the Dave Rogers’ flight logs with the Dershowitz -- which we call them the Dershowitz flight logs, which were the logs that he had produced, there were inconsistencies, and so it struck me as odd that there were these inconsistent flight logs. The other thing that I noticed is, I don't believe that Dave Rogers was the exclusive pilot for Mr. Epstein. And so I had a concern -- excuse me. I'm sorry. 1 had a concern that the flight logs that -- ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 00:37:16 00:37:20 00:37:22 00:37:25 00:37:27 00:37:32 00:37:35 00:37:37 00:37:40 00:37:42 00:37:45 00:37:48 00:37:52 00:37:54 00:37:55 00:37:56 00:37:59 00:38:02 00:38:03 00:38:03 00:38:07 00:38:08 00:38:12 00:38:16 00:38:19 00:38:22 00:38:25 00:38:25 00:38:28 00:38:31 00:38:37 00:38:38 00:38:42 00:38:45 00:38:47 00:38:49 00:38:52 00:38:54 00:38:56 00:38:59 00:39:03 00:39:05 00:39:08 00:39:13 00:39:16 00:39:20 00:39:22 00:39:26 00:39:29 00:39:31 ON Aah OH = 9 10 11 12 13 14 16 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 oOnN OO h WO RH 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 190 that covered the jet were not just the David Rogers’ flight logs, but there should be flight logs for other pilots which were not apparently being produced. And so, in light of all that, what I was seeing was a -~ a production of flight logs that was incomplete. And then I started to hear from Mr. Dershowitz that, well, these records prove conclusively I couldn't have done that. And I knew to an absolute certainty, that the records were inconsistent and inaccurate; and for somebody who had apparently carefully produced these records, to represent that these conclusively prove that he wasn't on the flights, seemed to me to be inaccurate information. So that was -- those were the kinds of things I was thinking about. Q. ‘Mr. Cassell, is it your testimony -~ MR, SIMPSON: Well, first of all, I move to strike the nonresponsive portion of the answer. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. Mr. Cassell, is it your testimony that you have sufficient information to conclude and allege that Professor Dershowitz falsified documents and gave falsified documents to a prosecuting authority? A. It is my belief that Professor Dershowitz ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 191 provided incomplete production to law enforcement agencies. Q. Is it your testimony under oath that you have sufficient information to allege that Professor Dershowitz intentionally provided false information to a prosecuting authority? A. It is my position that he provided incomplete information to a prosecuting authority and inaccurate information to a prosecuting authority. Now, as to precisely what his state of mind was when he was producing the incomplete and inaccurate information, that remains to be this -- you know, that was one of the topics that I was hoping could have been covered in -- in the depositions here in the last two days, but unfortunately, there wasn't sufficient time. Q. Let me ask it a different way. You -- you gave a long answer in which you described reasons you apparently believe that these flight logs were not merely incomplete, but that someone had false -- falsified them. And did I understand you correctly? MR. SCAROLA: Excuse me. The question that was asked was limited to the time period prior to December 30th. The answer that was given was limited to the time period prior to December 30th. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 10/20/2015 01:08:15 PM Page 188 to 191 of 335 10 of 46 sheets

Technical Artifacts (1)

View in Artifacts Browser

Email addresses, URLs, phone numbers, and other technical indicators extracted from this document.

Phone(954) 331-4400

Related Documents (6)

House OversightOtherNov 11, 2025

Alan Dershowitz defends representing Mike Tyson amid campus backlash

The passage only recounts public criticism and debate over Dershowitz's representation of Mike Tyson, without revealing new facts, financial transactions, or links to powerful officials. It offers lit Dershowitz faced letters and attacks for defending Tyson on appeal. Students threatened sexual harassment complaints over his classroom discussions. The controversy centers on the ethical debate of r

1p
House OversightOtherNov 11, 2025

Draft transcript excerpt mentions Jeffrey Epstein invoking the Fifth and a reference to Alan Dershowitz

The passage provides a vague, uncited reference to Epstein and Dershowitz refusing to answer questions in a hearing. It lacks concrete details—no dates, transactions, or specific allegations—making it Jeffrey Epstein allegedly took the Fifth Amendment during a court hearing. A question about Alan Dershowitz was raised, and he also invoked the Fifth. The excerpt is labeled as a rough draft and appe

1p
House OversightUnknown

Discovery Dispute Over Alan Dershowitz's Document Control in Defamation Suit

Discovery Dispute Over Alan Dershowitz's Document Control in Defamation Suit The passage outlines a procedural battle over production of documents and metadata in a defamation case involving Alan Dershowitz. While it flags potential evidence that could expose communications or internal materials, it lacks concrete details about the content, dates, or parties beyond the litigants, limiting immediate investigative value. However, the mention of “control” and alleged refusal to produce metadata could merit follow‑up to determine what information is being withheld and whether it relates to broader controversies surrounding Dershowitz. Key insights: Plaintiffs allege Dershowitz is withholding documents and metadata under the claim of ‘control’.; The objection is framed as ‘word play’ and gamesmanship, suggesting possible intentional concealment.; Discovery objections focus on timeframe limits, implying plaintiffs seek records spanning an undefined period.

1p
House OversightUnknown

Dershowitz seeks to seal Giuffre affidavit in Edwards‑Cassell defamation case, claims media attacks are fabricated

Dershowitz seeks to seal Giuffre affidavit in Edwards‑Cassell defamation case, claims media attacks are fabricated The passage hints at a possible concealment of evidence in a high‑profile defamation dispute involving Alan Dershowitz, a prominent attorney, and references the infamous Giuffre allegations. While it names well‑known legal figures, it provides no concrete financial transactions, dates, or new factual revelations beyond already public claims, limiting its investigative utility. However, the suggestion that a court record may be sealed to hide potentially damaging testimony offers a moderate lead for further document‑review and freedom‑of‑information requests. Key insights: Dershowitz requests the court to declare portions of Ms. Giuffre’s affidavit confidential.; He publicly denies the allegations on BBC Radio 4, framing them as a coordinated false‑story campaign.; Dershowitz threatens perjury prosecution against accusers and seeks disbarment of opposing counsel.

1p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

From: Lesley Groff

1p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

From: Lesley Groff <MIEll

1p

Forum Discussions

This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,400+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.

Annotations powered by Hypothesis. Select any text on this page to annotate or highlight it.