Giuffre_Maxwell_Batch7_p00059.png

10 Akal Be ak3} 14 Ales) 16 ANY) We uy) 20 Pal 22 23 24 25 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1332-2 Filed 01/08/24 Page 16 of 42 15 XGAQGIUc SEALED occurred at the end of the travel is relevant to the travel. Likewise, the travel is relevant to what happened afterwards. We have a statute now that makes it a crime, whether it's an adult or whether you're having illegal sex with somebody for money, whether it's with somebody underage, if you're having it in Thailand, if you're having it in France, and you're an American, you are now subject to federal criminal prosecution under the statute that we gave your Honor. There are other statutes. There's man acts statutes. There's travel statutes. There's a whole variety of statutes that Congress has put in to cause a legitimate risk that questions about Ms. Giuffre or Ms. Maxwell, whether the questions are fixed to a foreign location or a domestic location, could be the corroboration of Ms. Giuffre's otherwise uncorroborated allegations. We have to look no farther than the Bill Cosby case. Nobody prosecuted him based on the allegation of one of the alleged victims; but when he gave a deposition, that was voluntary and made statements, that became the corroboration that led to his prosecution for events that occurred 20 or 25 years ago. In terms of Professor Dershowitz, yes, Mr. Epstein did testify at a prior deposition about four or five years ago. At the time nobody had made any allegations connecting Professor Dershowitz to any of the allegations against Mr. Epstein except SOUTHERN, DISTRICT) REPORTERS 127 G:, (212) 805-0300