No, this article needs to be updated. Dershowitz's most recent salvo was in American Lawyer today, where he made a very, very strange comment:

Dershowitz: "No one can understand Cassell's motive. Either he will be disbarred or I will be. And if I knowingly had sex with a sex slave then I would deserve disbarment."

Read more: http://www.americanlawyer.c...

He's probably just trying to be precise to the case at hand, which does not requre him to address whether a lawyer who knowingly had sex with a sex slave would deserve disbarment.

Dershowitz got himself involved in all those lawsuits and then got himself "immunity".

Like a superhero!! Who woldn't want "immunity"? I hope I can get that too, by the time I am his age. Do I have to pal around with the Clintons?

The point is that he hadn't been precise in his interviews in the last two weeks. He keeps changing his stories and they're all over the map.

Well, he's gettng on in years, you know. All the better reason to stick to the points he is sure of (e.g., that he did not knowingly have sex with a sex slave).

What if she wasn't a "sex slave" but an underaged girl?

Quick, tell me who you met with ten years ago and detail the circumstances under which you met them.

Really? Is that you, Mr. Dershowitz? As I said, Virginia Roberts was a longtime employee of Epstein's and yet as Mr. Epstein's attorney he has never heard her name before, even though she was part of the criminal case. Attack me all you want but I am one of many who are questioning the conflicting and everchanging statements, pal.

Yes, by that one sentence, you deduced I'm Dershowitz. I should have known you'd stop my fiendish plots!

I found the "knowingly" part of his quote interesting (I also found it interesting that you had a bunch of posts here when no one else had showed up, BTW). While I find that interesting, though, I'm not going to hold it against the guy that his recollection isn't clear about going to someone's house over ten years ago.

I recall things pretty clearly 10 years ago when I was doing something pretty immoral/out of the ordinary....So...Mrs. Derhowitz???

EDIT: Except when there was a lot of cocaine...Jesus, there was a lot of cocaine.

I give that marriage 2 weeks.

Wait are you implying that doing a cocaine replica of the Andes Mountains is immoral/out of the ordinary. Because if so, I think we will have to agree to disagree

I've seen that little girl's picture. Please---you would remember her!

No. I seriously doubt you'd have a detailed memory of meeting a girl over 10 years ago (and this is assuming he did). Bull.

That depends on how often someone meets similar sorts of people. Maybe she was one of many and thus the fuzziness of memory.

Think you are wrong on that score.

"knowingly" seems to be an operative word here.

I think at the end of the day, Dershowitz will likely come out the winner on all this. If supporting evidence existed, it would almost surely have surfaced before now.

If you unknowingly have sex with a minor, I'm pretty sure that's a crime in most jurisdictions. Interesting how he qualified his statement with "knowingly."

Right. That was really the most interesting thing in the whole statement.

Yeah, that caught my eye too. In other words, unless I am mistaken all he is denying is that he had any knowledge of her being coerced. He is not actually denying having sex with her.

And he doesn't use the word "coerced." He is referring to a "sex slave" which I'm not sure precisely describes what a friend of Epstein's would or would not have known. I am not sure she was an actual "slave" and yet that is the word being bandied around in a manner that deflects possibly truthfulness.

He said he didn't have sex with anyone other than his wife during the entire period that is alleged. I don't know how much more specific he can be.

I'll bet this never comes to fruition, Cassell or Dershowitz being disbarred, only Victoria is subject to jail. Paul Cassell is only one of numerous men leading Victoria. Victoria did not create this plan nor can she file it herself, she is nothing more than a scapegoat, a pawn of the FBI Pimps I assure you. xxx

Also, Above The Law has not explained why Dershowitz has repeatedly said that he has never heard of Jane Doe (Virginia Roberts- she has given the press permission to use her name). How can this be? Dershowitz was Epstein's attorney. Roberts was one of at least 20 women interviewed by the FBI in the criminal case. She was employed by Epstein at age 15 for a number of years. She has been speaking out publicly against Epstein since 2005. That's a period of ten years!!

A number of news outlets have reported that Dershowitz got his private investigators to investigate the backgrounds of all of the 30 or so accusers, which including combing their Facebook pages for any discussions of drug use, etc. So you mean to say that Dershowitz has NEVER heard of Virginia Roberts, even though she was a longtime employee of Epstein's; was part of the criminal case and has been speaking out publicly against Epstein for the last ten years? Is there anyone on staff at Above The Law who is going to investigate this?

I've been following this story closely and what I can't get my head around are the apparent inconsistencies, in various statements apparently made by the professor, about how often, when and where Professor Dershowitz met and/or stayed with Mr. Epstein and when they became intimate friends. Having read some time ago about how Professor D. writes his books, I was astonished to read that, "Speaking to Vanity Fair in 2003, Dershowitz boasted, 'I’m on my 20th book…. The only person outside of my immediate family that I send drafts to is Jeffrey.'" A Harvard professor who sent his book drafts to Jeffrey Epstein exclusively - and was proud to say so? I can't get my head around that either.

Dershowitz also told one news outlet that he only stayed at Epstein's mansion once- with his wife and daughter.
Dershowitz claimed yesterday that he never discussed anything personal with Epstein- it was all business. So business was discussed with Dershowitz's wife and daughter with him? He has been all over the map with his statements.

Mr. D, a lawyer. visits his client Mr. E in his house, which is in a vacation resort. In the mornings he talks business with his client while his wife and daughter are at the beach. In the afternoons he joins them at the beach. Mr. D's wife and daughter are not present in the mornings when he talks business.

No inconsistency.

Stuff and nonsense.

And so why is he fraternizing with a known pedophile? And schlepping his wife and daughter along for the ride, yet?

Depends on which of Mr.. Eptstein's many residences are being discussed. I have spent a good deal of time in the USVI and Mr. Epstein owns an entire island, LIttle St. James. It's not impossible for a guest to be taken by boat to either St. Thomas or St. John for the night time portion of a visit though it does seem odd. Hopefully Mr. Dershowitz has his hotel receipts from either of those bigger islands to prove that in fact he spent his nights another, bigger island. It would seem to be a time consuming and expensive route to take but who knows.

Of course, people can do all sorts of things during daylight hours.

I believe that referred to one visit only.

Not to say you are openly biased here, but ATL does not generally undertake the task of "explaining" the statements of others.

She used to be in the Court TV forums all day long, nattering about how she could tell a defendant was guilty because she could "see it in his eyes".

This is a step up for her.

I guess this is why doctors don't operate on themselves (or family members). When you are too close to the case you are going to make foolish errors. He is trying to represent himself; he has a fool for a client.

Yup. There's been a comedic (to a retired lawyer) twist in the story.

In reaction to Dershowitz's denials that he had sex with the child and accusations of unethical conduct and need for disbarment because of inadequate investigation of the facts, Edwards and Cassell have sued Dershowitz for defamation per se. See complaint at http://online.wsj.com/publi...

If I recall my first year torts class correctly, once Edwards and Cassell make a prima facie case that Dershowitz made the defamatory statements, then the burden would shift to Prof. Dershowitz to prove that his accusation was true, i.e., to prove amongst other facts that in the words of President Clinton, "I did not sleep with that woman." As an example of Dershowitz's accusations, the defamation complaint provides
the URL http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/....

In that CNN interview, there is no doubt that Dershowitz made the accusation. But catch the comedy at 2:00, where Dershowitz says, "I am
filing today a sworn affidavit denying categorically the truth. I am seeking ..."

Now if you cannot imagine how that admission might come back to haunt Dershowitz at trial under cross-examination where selected statements from his affidavit will be shown on the projection screen, it's time to drop out of the legal profession.

I used to advise my clients right after the retainer agreement was signed to immediately cease discussing anything to do with the matter with anyone but me. And I would tell them why.

I wonder how many times Dershowitz advised a client to rush out and shoot his mouth off about the matter on nationwide television? Perhaps never?

I enjoyed reading your post.

Believe me TamTam, we know all about Kafkaesque nightmares.

"As Elie Mystal awoke one morning from uneasy dreams he found himself transformed in his bed into a gigantic walrus. He was lying on his slick, as it were rubber-coated, back and when he
lifted his head a little he could see his domelike belly bulging like a great mound on top of which the bed quilt could hardly
stay in place and was about to slide off completely. His two flippers,
which were pitifully small compared to the rest of his bulk, waved
helplessly before his eyes."

quit picking on Elie's weight! We need him back here writing raceism articles, and making him feel bad for nipping a few hot pockets is not going to help.

Read the Jan 9th article by Judge Gertner condemning Tabo's innuendo. This piece is what I guess is called "doubling down". Tamara, remember the first rule about holes.

I wrote a letter to the Editor of Above the Law, complaining about them not permitting comments under Judge Gertner's piece. Also, Gertner was complaining that Dershowitz needed to speak his piece. But that is precisely what Dershowitz has been doing since the story broke, haranguing and blaming and blasting and maligning the victim and her attorneys, all the while giving multiple and ever conflicting reasons as to why they brought the lawsuit. To a Jewish paper he claimed it was all because of anti-semitism. But yesterday, to American Lawyer, Dershowitz claimed that Paul Cassell filed the suit because he, Dershowitz is a liberal and Cassell is conservative.

We didn't need Gertner's piece as Dershowitz has been doing nothing BUT defend himself and attack the others for the last three weeks. We have heard nothing from the attorneys from the opposing side, except when Cassell said that Dershowitz had turned down multiple requests by them to be deposed under oath.

Come now, Mercyneal. I'm sure you have noticed by now that ABAJournal has only run two pieces on this: 1) where Dershowitz called for disbarment of Cassell; and 2) where Dershowitz proclaimed the defamation suit "made his day." So, ABA is coming out very pro-Dershowitz on this, although ABA also has taken numerous stances against all forms of trafficking. Surely ABAJournal would not take positions to protect an actual trafficker, even if he is a liberal.
In any event, now that the defamation case is on file, there should be a basis for discovery and trial of these issues in court. We need not speculate, as presumably, these parties are all so interested in establishing the truth that they will not enter into any private settlements for undisclosed sums. We can simply wait patiently to see what the courts will determine about what is what here.

I meant to say the interview with him yesterday was in the Ametican Lawyer. A Q and A

Right, you did. I'm not suggesting citation error. Just pointing out the vehemently anti-trafficking ABAJournal seems to have weighed in on his side. Granted, given their normal leftist bias, he could ordinarily just yell, "Hey, liberal in trouble here," and they would proceed to basically run whatever he says without even charging their normal ad rate. But I would not expect that with trafficking allegations, unless they have a high degree of confidence it won't blow up in their faces.

Whatever is is.

Several years ago, Cassell claimed that no innocent person has ever been executed in the United States, a preposterous claim. Cassell is also on record as purposing that the SCOTUS Escobedo decision which requires an arresting officer to inform the arrestee of his rights, be overturned. At the time, he was severely attacked by Dershowitz on network TV. This appears to me to be payback on Cassell's part. If Cassell said that the Sun would arise in the East tomorrow, I would be sure to wake up before sunrise to verify the claim.

"all the while giving multiple and ever conflicting reasons as to why
they brought the lawsuit. To a Jewish paper he claimed it was all
because of anti-semitism."

This is false, Dershowitz said that many of the people rubbing their hands with glee over the allegations against him are motivated by antisemitism, he never said that Cassell or Edwards were motivated by antisemitism.