Guilt by Accusation

by Alan Dershowitz

Here, then, in summary form is how Giuffre’s story evolved:

  •2011: Giuffre is interviewed by Churcher about her sexual encounters. She mentions numerous men, but not me.

  •2011: She had to be told by Churcher that I wrote Reversal of Fortune and am famous and would be a “good name for your pitch.”

  •2011: Churcher tells Giuffre, “you probably met him” hanging around with Epstein, though there is “no proof” he did anything wrong.

  •2012 Manuscript: Giuffre said she saw me in Epstein’s bedroom discussing business with Epstein, but not that she ever actually met me or had sex with me.

  •2013: Giuffre tells the FBI about the men with whom she says she had sex. She does not include me. She also tells James Figueroa (her then-boyfriend) and Rebecca Boylan (her childhood best friend) whom she met and had sex with, but does not include me.

  •2014: Meets her lawyers, who, she tells Rebecca Boylan, pressured her to include me among people with whom she had sex.

  •2014-2015: After meeting with her lawyers—and “feeling pressure” from them—Giuffre suddenly “remembers” having sex with me seven times between 2001 and 2002 (when she was 18 and 19). She substitutes me for Professor Stephen in her new false account, and then denies having sex with him, despite her vivid description of her sexual encounter with him in her manuscript.

  •2015-2019: Her lawyers are well aware of this chronology and these facts when they submit perjured affidavits by her, falsely accusing me of having had sex with her.

  30 Jane Doe # 1 & Jane Doe #2 v. U.S., Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/ Johnson, United States District Court Southern District of Florida, available to view at https://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/2015_0102_epsteindershowitz.pdf

  31 These exchanges have been reproduced in several media outlets, including Tracy Connor, Alan Dershowitz: Unsealed Emails Show Epstein Accuser Lied About Sex With Me, Daily Beast, Aug. 20, 2019.

  32 See Appendix K.

  33 Roberts Manuscript, p. 112

  34 Sharon Churcher has said that her lawyer has publicly confirmed that Giuffre never had sex with me. We are currently seeking to unseal a brief filed by Churcher’s lawyer that confirms Churcher’s exculpatory assessment.

  35 In a court submission in the defamation case, Giuffre v. Maxwell, Roberts claims that “in 2011, she sought psychological counseling from a psychologist for the trauma she endured… Also that year, journalist Sharon Churcher sought her out, and traveled half way around the globe to interview her on painful subjects. [She] began to draft a fictionalized account of what happened to her… Doing so was an act of empowerment and a way of reframing and taking control over the narrative of her past abuse that haunts her.” (Emphasis added.)

  CHAPTER 5

  Suitable for Framing; Why Me?

  During my interviews with the media, I was frequently asked the following questions: Why would Giuffre accuse you if it wasn’t true? What does she have to gain by accusing you?36 She had to know you would fight back. I too was puzzled by these questions.

  As soon as I heard of the false accusation against me, I suspected that it was about money. Giuffre claimed in her filings that in addition to Prince Andrew and me, she had engaged in sex with numerous “politicians, powerful business executives, foreign presidents, a well-known Prime Minister, and other world leaders.” Ultimately she named many of these individuals, but only in a sealed deposition. Even before her testimony was unsealed, my own investigation established that they included former Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell, former cabinet member Bill Richardson, the late MIT Professor Marvin Minsky, a wealthy hotel owner from the Pritzker family, billionaire Leslie Wexner, former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and other well-known, respected and wealthy figures. Why then did she only name me and Prince Andrew in a public filing and the others in sealed filings? I soon began to suspect that I was being used as a stalking horse in a scheme to obtain money from at least some of these as-yet publicly unnamed wealthy alleged abusers. I believed that the not-so-subtle threat message to these unnamed but privately accused individuals was that if they did not want to have happen to them what had happened to me—namely, to have their names spread all over the world as accused pedophiles—her silence could be bought for a price, just as her public accusations made to the Daily Mail against Prince Andrew, President Clinton and Vice President Gore and his then-wife Tipper had been bought for a price. As I later testified, I believed it was an encouragement to the unnamed individuals to “pay money for [their names] not being mentioned or revealed.”

  * * *

  I knew that I was not the likely target of the plot for several reasons: first, the target of blackmail from whom the money is sought isn’t publicly revealed, because it is the threat of public disclosure that is held over the head of the target; second, anyone who knows me would realize that I would never pay a penny to buy the silence of a false accuser; and finally, nobody had asked me for money. (That has since changed.) It seemed logical that the false accusation against me was being used to pressure someone else. At least that is what I believed. But I had no idea who it could be. I knew it had to be someone wealthy who was acquainted with Jeffrey Epstein. Epstein had many rich friends, and it could be any or all of them.

  * * *

  Then suddenly, out of the blue, I found out. Giuffre’s longtime best friend, a woman named Rebecca Boylan37, reached out to me through her husband. She was reluctant to become involved, but felt terrible about what was happening to me. She had just spent time with her friend Virginia after Virginia had been beaten up by her husband. They discussed me in some detail. Boylan told me that Giuffre had never previously mentioned me as one of the people with whom she claimed to have had sex and that she didn’t want to accuse me in the legal papers, but she “felt pressure” from her lawyers to include me. Boylan’s husband confirmed that Giuffre had told them I was not among the men with whom she had sex.

  Then Boylan told me who she believed the real target was: she didn’t know his name, but she knew he was a wealthy businessman from Ohio who owned the Limited Too and Victoria’s Secret. I immediately knew she was referring to Leslie Wexner, who was a close friend and longtime business associate of Jeffrey Epstein. Boylan gave me permission to record our conversation, and this is what she told me:

  She [Virginia Roberts Giuffre] just said that he owned Victoria’s Secret and Limited Too, and that he had lots of money. You know, was a billionaire. . . . They wanted to sue him for at least half his money. . . . She made it sound like they were already talking to him and they were . . . already, you know, in the process of suing him. . . . She also said to me that . . . when it came to Alan Dershowitz that she did feel pressure to go after you . . . she felt pressure to do it, she didn’t want to go after you specifically, that she felt pressured by her lawyers to do that.

  Boylan also told me that:

  “Virginia never wanted to go after you but she felt pressured by her lawyers. I never heard her mention you when we were kids or until very recently when things happened in the media. But I never heard her mention you before.”

  I immediately called Leslie Wexner to inform him that he might be the target of a plot to threaten him with public exposure unless he paid money to buy Giuffre’s silence. I reached his wife, Abigail, who confirmed that Giuffre’s lawyers had been in touch with them about what she characterized as a “shakedown.” She referred me to their lawyer, John Zeiger. I called Zeiger, who confirmed that Giuffre’s lawyers had contacted him. He, too, used the world “shakedown.” Boies had secretly reached out to Wexner, at about the same time my name had been made public, and later met with Zeiger.

  Boies’s co-counsel, Stanly Pottinger, has stated in an affidavit that Giuffre had asserted that Wexner “had sex with one or more of Epstein’s girls, including Mrs. Giuffre.” (See Appendix J.)

  Zeiger told me that Boies had informed him that his client, Virginia Roberts Giuffre, was accusing Wexner of having had sex with her on multiple occ
asions while she was underage. The accusation was strikingly similar to the one made against me, in terms of location, frequency, and other details. But there was one significant difference: Giuffre was also accusing Wexner of having made her dress up in baby-doll lingerie of the kind sold by Victoria’s Secret. If this accusation were to be made public, it would have a devastating impact on the company and on Wexner’s leadership of it.

  Wexner’s lawyers told Boies that the accusations were absolutely false. They also noted that any claims were well beyond the statute of limitations that then governed, since they were alleged to have occurred nearly fifteen years earlier. Why, then, would Boies take time out of his very busy schedule to pursue a legal case that was barred by the statute of limitations and had no chance of succeeding in a court of law? Boies was a good enough lawyer to understand this. What, then, was his game plan when he spent hours meeting with Wexner’s lawyers and describing in detail the accusations Giuffre was leveling against this multibillionaire? Moreover, why did Giuffre’s legal team accuse me in public court filings but make no mention of Wexner? Why did they decide to approach Wexner privately to discuss Giuffre’s allegations against him but to name Prince Andrew and me publicly? Was it true what Rebecca Boylan said that Giuffre had told her: that she was seeking a megabuck payday from Wexner despite the fact that the statute of limitations barred any lawsuit?

  I don’t know whether Virginia Giuffre’s accusation that Leslie Wexner had had sex with her on multiple occasions when she was underage is true or false, though I suspect it is false. Nor do I know whether her accusations against the other prominent and wealthy friends and associates of Epstein are true or false. All I know for certain is that she is lying about me and has a long, sordid history of lying about other prominent men. I do not know whether David Boies believes her accusations against Wexner to be true or false. But if Boies believes them to be true, then why wasn’t Wexner accused in public like I was? Why was he accused only in private? Why has he not been sued under the new statute of limitations that permits underage victims to sue for criminal acts that took place decades ago? If Boies believes that Giuffre’s very specific accusations against Wexner are false—as his co-counsel Bradley Edwards has acknowledged38—how can he continue to maintain that her nearly identical allegations against me are true? How can he continue to represent someone who he believes made up a story about Wexner in an effort to obtain a billion dollars from him? Why is he continuing to vouch for her credibility if he knows she lied about Wexner and others?

  I leave it to the reader to answer these questions—or for Boies to provide an explanation.

  Thus far, Boies, who has been outspoken on many other issues, has refused to address these difficult questions about Wexner. Because one possible answer to these questions may suggest a criminal “shakedown” of Wexner, I took the matter to both federal and state prosecutors. I showed them the evidence, played the tapes and laid out the possible criminal scenarios. I relate what occurred in Chapter 11.

  36 This attitude that “women need to be believed” because the women have “nothing to gain” by accusing someone of sexual assault dominated the Kavanaugh hearings. At the time of the controversial confirmation hearings, I wrote several op-eds urging the public not to make decisions who to believe based on gender identity, including “How To Decide Who To Believe in Kavanaugh, Rosenstein Drama,” The Hill, Sept. 25, 2018, and “Postpone Kavanaugh Confirmation Until FBI Can Investigate Accusations Against Him,” Fox News, Sept. 27, 2018.

  37 Until now, I have not disclosed Rebecca’s last name, because she didn’t want to be called by journalists, but the media has now found her, disclosed her name and tried to interview her.

  38 See Chapter 9.

  CHAPTER 6

  Being Exculpated

  Prior to the advent of the #MeToo movement in the fall of 2017, my case was closed. The judge had struck the false accusation as irrelevant and impertinent and had sanctioned the lawyers who had filed it. An independent investigation by the former Director of the FBI, Louis Freeh, had concluded that the accusation was disproved. Here is the text of Freeh’s conclusion:

  Over the past several months, an independent investigation was conducted, under my supervision by former senior federal law enforcement officials. We interviewed many witnesses and reviewed thousands of pages of documentary evidence. Our investigation found no evidence to support the accusation of sexual misconduct against professor Dershowitz. In fact, in several instances, the evidence directly contradicted the accusations made against him.

  In my opinion, the totality of the evidence found during the investigation refutes the allegations made against Professor Dershowitz. (Appendix I)

  On March 9, 2019, the Chief Executive Officer of the Freeh Group issued a supplementary statement detailing aspects of the investigation. It included the following:

  During the course of our investigation, personnel from FGIS, including a former senior prosecutor and investigator from the U.S. Department of Justice with more than a half century of collective experience conducing criminal investigations, carefully examined thousands of pages of documentary evidence, much of which Professor Dershowitz supplied to us; sought to reconstruct events in New York City, Palm Beach, Little St. James Island, a ranch in New Mexico, and on a private aircraft; and identified and interviewed many witnesses who were able to provide relevant details regarding Ms. Roberts’ allegations. In our opinion, the totality of the evidence found during the investigation refutes the allegations made against Professor Dershowitz.

  In addition, FCIS made a Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) request to the U.S. Secret Service (“USSS”) for “any and all sift logs, travel records, itineraries, reports and other records for USSS personnel traveling with former President William Clinton to Little St. James Island.” This was done in an effort to determine whether former President Clinton had been there as Ms. Roberts alleged.

  On January 16, 2016, the official in charge of the USSS’s FIOA/PA Office replied by letter that the “USSS has conducted a reasonable search for responsive records” and “from a review of USSS main indices, that there are no records pertaining to your request that are referenced in these indices.” Thus, the conclusion that can be drawn that, contrary to Ms. Roberts’ allegation, Former President Clinton did not in fact travel to, nor was he present on, Little St. James Island between January 1, 2002 and January 1, 2003. The FOIA results not only directly impeach Ms. Roberts’ specific allegations against Professor Dershowitz, but in our opinion completely undermine her credibility. Together with our other factual findings and conclusions, it is our opinion that all of these allegations against him were made without any basis.

  At the conclusion of our investigation, which was conducted under the supervision of FGIS Chairman, Louis J. Freeh, FGIS concluded that we “found no evidence to support the accusation of sexual misconduct against Professor Dershowitz. In fact, in several instances, the evidence directly contradicted the accusations made against him.”

  We stand by our investigation and that conclusion.

  (See Appendix I)

  My accuser’s own lawyer had told me—on tape—he had reviewed my travel and other records and had come to the conclusion that it would have been “impossible” for me to have been in locations where Giuffre claimed to have sex with me and that she was “wrong . . . simply wrong” in accusing me. The text of this admission is set out in Chapter 4. Finally, the lawyers who filed the pleadings accusing me of sexual misconduct acknowledged that it was a mistake to have done so and formally withdrew them. This is what Giuffre’s lawyers agreed to say in a statement approved by all parties, with regard to Giuffre’s accusation:

  Dershowitz completely denies any such misconduct, while not disputing Robert’s statements that the underlying alleged misconduct may have occurred with someone else. Dershowitz has produced travel and other records for the relevant times which he relies on to establish that he could not have been present when the alleged
misconduct occurred. He has also produced other evidence that he relies upon to refute the credibility of the allegations against him.

  The parties believe it is time to take advantage of the new information that has come to light on both sides during the litigation and put these matters behind them.

  Given the events that have transpired since the filing of the documents in the federal court and in this action in which Dershowitz was accused of sexual misconduct, including the court order striking the allegations in the federal court filings, and the records and other documents produced by the parties, Edwards and Cassell acknowledge that it was a mistake to have filed sexual misconduct accusations against Dershowitz; and the sexual misconduct accusations made in all public filings (including all exhibits) are thereby withdrawn. (emphasis added)

  They later argued that the “mistake” to which they admitted was merely “tactical,” not substantive, but that’s not what their binding statement says, nor is it what was agreed to. Indeed, the explicit reference to my “travel and other records for the relevant times” and to “the new information” make it clear that their mistake was substantive: they should not have falsely accused an innocent man of sexual misconduct. That is the far more reasonable interpretation of their statement.

  It was a costly mistake for me because the false accusation—the recent fabrication—was published and transmitted all around the world. And false accusations can’t simply be struck, withdrawn, or called a mistake. The original story, containing the false accusation, received far more attention than the subsequent stories about the evidence that proved my innocence and the withdrawal of the false accusation.

  The accusations against me were no longer in the news, but the stench lingered. Lawyers like to point out that when prejudicial evidence is presented to a jury and then struck by the judge, it’s like “throwing a skunk into the jury box: when the skunk is removed the smell remains.”