Exposing Giuffre’s lies about her age is not intended to suggest that a 19-year-old cannot be abused by older men. It is intended only to case doubt upon her credibility with regard to her false claims against me. If she was, in fact, abused by others, she would be a victim even if she was above the age of consent. But her own Florida lawyer has cast doubt about whether she was forced to have sex with any prominent people.
The combined evidence of my innocence and her history of lying about her accusations and her age totally discredited her accusation against me.
It was not surprising, therefore, that the federal judge struck the accusation from the record as irrelevant and impertinent, and Giuffre’s lawyers admitted that it had been a “mistake” to file it.
The matter was closed. I was exculpated by the evidence. The media, even the notorious social media, stopped accusing me. Life was back to normal. I was still controversial politically, especially because as a liberal Democrat who had strongly supported Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump, I was now defending President Trump’s constitutional rights against those who would impeach or prosecute him. I wrote two controversial books on the subject and regularly appeared on TV. As a result, I became something of a pariah on Martha’s Vineyard, where former friends turned against me for defending the constitutional rights of a president they honestly believed was bad for the country and the world. I was repeatedly asked how I could defend the rights of a president I had voted against. Finally, my wife, who was getting bored with my complicated responses, got me a T-shirt that simply read: “It’s the constitution, stupid.” Wearing it didn’t make me any friends. Nor did my advocacy for Israel make me many friends on the hard left. But even those who shunned and despised me for my defense of Trump’s constitutional rights and my support for Israel did not believe that I had engaged in sexual misconduct.
My public life was more controversial than ever, but my private life returned to what it had been before the accusation against me had been proven totally false.
Then along came the #MeToo movement and everything changed. Although the evidence of my innocence only increased during this period9—and the evidence of my accuser’s mendacity also became more evident—the atmosphere changed dramatically. Evidence was no longer important. It was the accusation that mattered, as well as the identities of the accuser and accused. The presumption shifted from innocence to guilt. For a man to call a false accuser a liar became a political sin, even if the accused had hard evidence of the accuser’s lies, as I did. Much of the media, especially but not exclusively the social media, bought into the narrative of guilt by accusation instead of by proof. They refused to report on evidence of innocence that contradicted the narrative of guilt. For some an accusation of sexual guilt is so horrible that it must be true, regardless of the evidence. For others, it is irrelevant whether I did or did not have sex with Giuffre. I’m “guilty” of having defended Jeffrey Epstein, the porn star Harry Reems, the boxer Mike Tyson, and the football player O.J. Simpson, as well as having raised doubts about the credibility of some accusers. For these zealots, my history of defending a small number of accused rapists and wife-killers (even when combined with my history of representing many female victims) is enough to overcome any presumption of innocence or absence of evidence of guilt.
In my case, as we shall see in detail in the pages to come, documents that were unlawfully hidden by my accuser and her lawyers were discovered and unsealed: they left no doubt that I had been framed for money. They proved Giuffre had never even met me in 2011—three years before she falsely claimed that in 2001 and 2002 she had engaged in sex with me on seven occasions. In 2011, she essentially admitted, in an exchange of emails, that she never had sex with me. And in a book manuscript she authored, she said she saw me once when she was nearly 19, “convers[ing] about business” with Epstein, but she did not include me among the men she named as having had sex with.
Giuffre’s Florida lawyer, Bradley Edwards, also provided damning evidence that she lied about having been forced to have sex with many prominent people, including billionaire Leslie Wexner, former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, Senator George Mitchell, Ambassador Bill Richardson, and others. Edwards told a TV interviewer that based on his 11-year investigation, he does not believe that “any high profile people would be implicated,” and that Wexner wasn’t even aware of any sexual misconduct related to Epstein, and certainly didn’t participate in any. If that is true, then Giuffre committed perjury.
These smoking-gun documents and recorded statements—which will be quoted in full and discussed in subsequent chapters—were barely mentioned by some media and not at all by most. Following the arrest and apparent suicide of Jeffrey Epstein, the media became even less willing to publish documented information that cast any doubt on the accounts of Epstein victims. In the minds of some, including some in the media, the presumption, indeed the certainty, of guilt that flows from an accusation by a woman cannot be overcome by evidence or the lack thereof. Though there is not a scintilla of evidence to support the accusation against me—no photographs, no witnesses, no documents, no contemporaneous accusation—and though the accuser has a long history of falsely accusing prominent men, and though she communicated to her friends she did not have sex with me, and though her lawyer admitted she was “wrong,” the media persists in portraying me as possibly guilty.
The result of this media portrayal is that I am now presumed guilty—or at least suspect—and at age 81 my life and career are no longer being honored but dishonored. An obituary writer for the Washington Post called to tell me that he was drafting my obituary, which would include references to the accusation.10 All this because of a demonstrably false accusation by a woman with a long history of lying.
* * *
If my evidence is not enough to overcome the current presumption of guilt by accusation, will any falsely accused person ever be able to prove his innocence?
I decided to write this book to address this question head on. Its title derives from a “demand” made by TV personality Meghan McCain that I not be allowed on TV because I was “accused” of sexual misconduct in the Epstein matter. The fact that I have disproved this false accusation is irrelevant to her. An accusation is enough to establish guilt in her mind and in that of other like-minded members of the media.
The current media cannot be trusted to tell the full story of a well-documented false accusation in this age of #MeToo and Epstein. As I will show, those few journalists who even try to be fair are accused of undermining the #MeToo movement.
So here is my story. I invite the readers to apply their critical skills to my evidence and arguments. I am confident that any fair assessment of the evidence and lack thereof will lead to only one conclusion: my accuser made up the entire false account to frame me for money and I am completely innocent. I know that for some, that will not be enough. I am writing this book despite my realization that it will probably be read largely by those who already know I’m innocent or who have an open mind about the issue. I have no expectation of opening the closed minds of zealots who believe that sexual assault is so heinous a crime that even total innocence should not be accepted as a defense.
I write as well for readers in future generations who may be more interested in the truth than some in the #MeToo generation seem to be. I write for my children, my grandchildren and their children. And I write to establish the historical and evidentiary record of my innocence. Eventually the pendulum will swing back to truth, and when it does, the documentation of my innocence will be available to those who care about what actually happened—and didn’t happen.
Some friends and relatives have urged me not to write this book, because it will only continue the focus on the false accusation against me. They argue, quite persuasively, that the less attention paid to the accusation, the more likely the story will “go away.” But it is not my goal to make the story “go away.” My goal is to disprove it, categorically and definitively, until there is no ling
ering doubt in the minds of all fair and open-minded people.
They also argue that it is a fool’s errand to try to “prove a negative”—namely, that I did not have sex with my accuser. It is, to be sure, a daunting challenge, but I accept it. If Giuffre had falsely accused me of having sex with her once in New York, it would have been nigh impossible to disprove that conclusively, even though it is untrue. But she foolishly accused me of having sex with her seven times in places her own lawyer admitted it would have been “impossible” for me to have been during the relevant time period. That, combined with her own implicit admissions—in the emails and manuscript—have made it possible for me to prove the negative.
Others have argued that my persistent claims of total innocence make me sound guilty. But if I remained silent—or simply issued a rote denial—some would say that my refusal to defend myself makes me “sound guilty.” It’s a no-win situation in the age of #MeToo. So I will continue to assert and prove my innocence—regardless of what some will say. All victims should speak out. Victims of sexual abuse as well as victims of false accusations of sexual abuse.
Finally, some have criticized me for calling my false accusers liars and perjurers, claiming that I am trying to “silence” victims of abuse. But it is my false accusers and their allies who have been trying to silence me, by calling me a pedophile and then saying that “accused” pedophiles should not have access to the media. They are also trying to silence me by threatening to sue and actually suing me for defamation if I defend myself against their false accusation in the court of public opinion.
To paraphrase Adlai Stevenson: If my accusers stop lying about me, I will stop telling the truth about them.
Hence this book.
1 For a description of my cases and career, see The Best Defense (1982), Chutzpah (1991) and Taking the Stand (2013).
2 See, Albert S. Lindemann, The Jew Accused: Three Anti-Semitic Affairs Dreyfus, Beilis, Frank, 1894-1915 (1992). I write about the Leo Frank and Scottsboro trials in “America on Trial” (2004), pp. 218-226; 276-282
3 Alex Beam, Alan Dershowitz Takes the Stand, Boston Globe, Oct. 3, 2013.
4 Alan M. Dershowitz, Reversal of Image: Watching Someone Playing Yourself, New York Times, Oct. 14, 1990.
5 As Judge Jose Cabranes recently put it, “Our legal process is already susceptible to abuse. Unscrupulous litigants can weaponize the discovery process to humiliate and embarrass their adversaries. Shielded by the ‘litigation privilege,’ bad actors can defame opponents in court pleadings or depositions without fear of lawsuit and liability. Unfortunately, the presumption of public access to court documents has the potential to exacerbate these harms to privacy and reputation by ensuring that damaging material irrevocably enters the public record.” Brown v. Maxwell, No. 18-2868 (2d Cir. 2019).
6 These documents are quoted in subsequent chapters and reproduced in the Appendices.
7 On April 7, 2011, Giuffre told a lawyer that she was born on August 9, 1983, and that she first met Epstein “around June of 1998,” which would have put her age at 14 years, 10 months. That was a lie. She didn’t meet him until—at the earliest—mid-summer 2000, when she turned 17. She was also asked during that interview about several people associated with Epstein who might “have relevant information about Jeffrey’s taking advantage of underage girls.” When my name was offered, she said “yes.” Of course, I would have such information, since I was one of Epstein’s lawyers and such information was part of his guilty plea. I did not know of any of Epstein’s unlawful activities before I became his lawyer. In this conversation, she did not accuse me of doing anything improper.
8 In a recent interview with NBC News, Roberts said, “When you are abused, you know your abuser. I might not have my dates right, I might not have my times right… but I know their faces and I know what they’ve done to me.” Dateline NBC, Sept. 20th, 2019.
9 I had been warned that if I didn’t withdraw a bar complaint I had filed against Giuffre’s lawyers, they would get another woman to accuse me. The woman they found—who falsely claimed I had engaged in a threesome with her when she was 22 years old—admitted that she had “invented” false accusations against Epstein associates and others in order to frighten Epstein. She also invented the story about me, which was quickly discredited. More on this in subsequent chapters.
10 As Slate explained the process, “[N]ews organizations prepare so-called “advancers” in one of three situations: The subject is so famous that the paper would be embarrassed not to have an immediate package in the event of an untimely death; the subject is old or sick; or the subject is “at risk”—i.e., he’s a drug addict or a stunt biker.” Christopher Beam, Early Deadlines: How Far in Advance Do Newspapers Write Obituaries?, Slate, August 27, 2009. I hope I belong to the first rather than the second or third category.
CHAPTER 1
How I Met Jeffrey Epstein
I had never heard of Jeffrey Epstein when Lynn Forester—a prominent and wealthy woman who soon thereafter married Sir Evelyn Rothschild and became the Lady d’Rothschild—called and asked me to meet her “dear friend.” I was on Martha’s Vineyard with my family and was reluctant to have a guest, but Lynn implored me, saying it would be a great favor to her and that I would enjoy meeting this “wonderful and brilliant” man. She told me that he was interested in science and law, close to the president and provost of Harvard and a “good person.” He and his friend Leslie Wexner had contributed a large sum of money to build the Hillel House at Harvard in honor of Harvard’s Provost, Henry Rosovsky. Epstein was flying to the Vineyard to visit Lynn that day and she wanted to bring him over for a brief introduction. Lynn dropped him off at my house and he met my wife and children. We talked about science and his interest in funding some research at Harvard on evolutionary biology. I told him that I had taught a course with Stephen J. Gould, a world famous paleontologist and evolutionary theorist, and he asked me to introduce him to Steve.
Rothschild, herself a lawyer, had many prominent friends, including David Boies (about whom more later). She introduced many in her social circle to Epstein, including—she boasted—President Bill Clinton. She vouched for Epstein and became his calling card to people on the Vineyard, in New York, in Palm Beach and elsewhere. Rothschild had a long-term, personal relationship with Epstein that ended in a financial dispute, amidst mutual recriminations over a townhouse she sold him for his friend Ghislaine Maxwell. Rothschild then told me that Epstein was “untrustworthy.” (Epstein said the same about Rothschild.) But she did not tell me anything about his personal life.
Meeting Epstein was just about the worst thing that ever happened to me. I wish I had never laid eyes on him. I take full responsibility for becoming his acquaintance and lawyer, but I wish Rothschild had never asked me to meet him in the first place.
Shortly after our brief time together on the Vineyard, Epstein invited me to attend Leslie Wexner’s 59th birthday dinner in New Albany, Ohio, a suburb of Columbus where Wexner had a mansion and several small houses on his property, including one owned by Epstein. He told me that Wexner, who was worth several billion dollars, did not want any material gifts for his birthday, but asked Epstein to bring the most interesting man he had met that year. Epstein said that he had told Wexner about me and Wexner wanted to meet me. I flew to New Albany on Epstein’s private jet along with Senator and former astronaut, John Glenn, who was also a guest at the dinner party. The other guests included the former Prime Minister and soon to be President of Israel, Shimon Peres, as well as A. Alfred Taubman, the CEO of Sotheby’s auction house. The all-male dinner was an intellectual as well as gastronomical feast. We discussed science, art, politics and Israel.
Shortly after this, Lynn Forester gave a birthday dinner for Rothschild on Martha’s Vineyard. Epstein was there and so was Prince Andrew, the Duke of York. Forester introduced Epstein to all the fancy people in attendance and sang his praises.
At the dinner, Prince Andrew expressed an interest in attending my
class at Harvard and I invited him to sit in on my first-year criminal law course. We were discussing the Second Amendment, and he raised his hand to make a point based on his own military experience with weapons. The dean then organized a faculty lunch in his honor. Several days later, he wrote me a letter of appreciation that included the following:
Dear Alan
Thank you for a most intellectual experience, it was fascinating insight into the law and the very serious subjects and dilemmas you face.
. . .
[T]he opportunity to be a student for just one lecture was an expanding experience and I cannot begin to thank you enough for your kindness.
Thanks must also be made for the fascinating tour of the Law School Library and the wonderful lunch with some of the faculty of Harvard. I was tempted to remain and enroll for a few other courses after the discussions at lunch! . . .
I look forward to continuing my intellectual challenge with you and Jeffrey E in the coming months. Thank you again for a fantastic experience.
Yours sincerely,
Andrew
The letter is dated 30 September 1999—a year before Giuffre met Epstein.
I then saw Epstein from time to time when he came to Harvard to meet with several faculty members and administrators to discuss academic issues. He introduced me to some Harvard professors whom I had never met, despite being on the same faculty for many years. Eventually Epstein established an office in Harvard Square where he invited faculty members from Harvard and MIT to participate in luncheon seminars, which I enjoyed immensely.
Epstein and I established an academic acquaintance, but never a close personal friendship. We never went out together socially. We did not discuss our families. I never met his mother or brother, or knew anything about them. Our relationship—one can call it a kind of friendship akin to that I had with other professional colleagues—centered around academic matters. He was interested in my writing and I sent him drafts of several books. His comments and critiques were insightful and interesting and I thanked him in my acknowledgments. He had street smarts and I enjoyed discussing my work with him. We never discussed his work, which remains something of a mystery beyond his money management for Leslie Wexner.
Guilt by Accusation Page 2
