The Affidavit is one of 30 exhibits her lawyers filed with their 40 page response opposing Dershowitz's request to intervene in the lawsuit Jane Does #1 and #2 filed against the Government. (Jane Does #1 and #2 want to void the feds' agreement not to prosecute Jeffrey Epstein if he complied with the requirements of his state court plea deal, which included jail time, and compensation to the victims and payment of their legal fees.)

Everyone can read the salacious allegations for themselves. I'm more interested in her lawyers' assertion that the allegations in her affidavit are corroborated by other witnesses and evidence, and in any inconsistencies. Despite their 29 other exhibits, all of which I've now read, I'm not seeing the corroboration. This isn’t to say her allegations are false. I have no idea whether she or Dershowitz is telling the truth. I’m talking about whether she has provided any proof of her claims.

Roberts claims in her affidavit she had sex with Dershowitz at least six times, starting when she was "about 16...and it continued until I was 19." She lists five (not six) instances.

• The first time we had sex took place in New York in Epstein’s home. It was in Epstein’s room (not the massage room). I was approximately 16 years old at the time.
• The second time...was at Epstein’s house in Palm Beach.
• [A]t Epstein’s Zorro Ranch in New Mexico in the massage room off of the indoor pool area, which was still being painted
• [A]t Little Saint James Island in the U.S. Virgin Islands.
• [O]n Epstein’s airplane. Another girl was present on the plane with us.

Her lawyers included deposition transcripts of two “eyewitnesses”, both employees of Epstein. One was employed for 6 months in 2004-2005. Roberts left Epstein for Thailand and Australia in 2002, so he provides no corroboration of Roberts' claims as to Dershowitz. (He was later convicted of obstruction of justice for stealing Epstein's journal and trying to sell it to the media, and sentenced to 18 months. He is now deceased.)

The second eyewitness cited by Roberts' lawyers is Juan Alessi, who worked for Epstein at the same time Roberts worked for him. This is what her lawyers write:

He started working for Epstein in about January 1999. He testified that Jane Doe No. 3 was one of the girls who came to Epstein’s mansion regularly when she was in the age range of 15 to 19. (My emphasis.)

As evidence for this assertion, the lawyers cite Exhibit 18, which contains excerpts of Alessi's deposition. They specifically cite (page and line) 46:21- 47:4 and 48:18-25. Here's what those pages say:

BY MS. EZELL:
21 Q. How old did you think V.R. was at the time she
22 began coming to Mr. Epstein's home?
23 A. She could have been 17, 18, 19.
24 Q. Could she have also been 15?
THE WITNESS:
1 Could have been. But, you know,
2 I am not -- I don't think I am a very good judge of
3 ages. If you ask me how old you are, I really
4 couldn't tell you.

A few lines later, Alessi adds:

7 THE WITNESS: Now, again, I must tell you, I
8 was never told to check any i.d.s on any of the
9 people who work at the house.

And a few lines later, he says the only underage girl he remembers is the one who became a famous actress, and she wasn't a massage therapist. He says he knows she was underage because he used to pick her up at high school. He says that's the only underage girl he remembers.

This excerpt does not match her lawyers' description. Alessi said she could have been 17 to 19. Her lawyer asked if she could have been 15. He said she could have been but he didn't know and he's not a good judge of age.

The lawyers' second selection from Alessi’s deposition doesn't reference age at all. Alessi says he's the one who drove Maxwell to Mar A Lago the day she first met Roberts. There's no discussion of age in the excerpt.

BY MS. EZELL:
18 Q. Did you assume that she was a massage
19 therapist because you were told she was coming to give a
20 massage?
21 A. No. I assumed she was a massage therapy
22 because I was -- I drove Ms. Maxwell to Mar-a-lago,
23 Donald Trump's residence. And I wait in the car while
24 Ms. Maxwell got a -- I think it was a facial or massage.
25 I don't know. But that day I remember this girl, V.,

She doesn't provide dates for any encounters with Dershowitz, she just says she was "about 16" when the first one happened, and she was 19 the last time. Her affidavit confirms she was born in August, 1983. She would have turned 19 in August, 2002. She says she was 19 when she left for Thailand in September, 2002 and she never returned to work for Epstein. So she is saying under penalty of perjury that she last had sex with Dershowitz sometime between August, 2002 and September of 2002. It can't be that difficult to determine whether she and Dershowitz were at the same place at the same time during a one month period. If they weren't, I personally think it casts doubt on all of her allegations against him.

I’ve also mentioned previously that a man named Anthony Figueroa from Colorado was recently interviewed by the British press. The Sun has this picture of the couple. The Daily Mail reports he said he was her boyfriend the last 18 months she was with Epstein before she left for Thailand. He says they talked about having kids together but broke up after he read her diary with all her secrets.

The father-of-one said he dated Miss Roberts for around 18 months and they spoke about having children, but split when he read her diary extracts detailing her distressing secrets. The last time he saw her was when Epstein sent to her to a massage school in Thailand, he added.

He also said she only worked for Epstein two weeks a month during their time together. If true, that further narrows the possible time period she and Dershowitz were in the same place at the same time when she was 19 to two weeks.

The remainder of the lawyers' response contains no other "corroboration" as to Roberts' claims she had sex with Dershowitz. Instead they provide smokescreens about his behavior years later and draw inferences from that.

After detailing some flight records, the lawyers admit they have have not found any showing Roberts and Dershowitz ever flew on the same plane. In a deposition excerpt they attach as an exhibit, a police officer testifies the airport doesn't keep records of passengers on private planes. Her lawyers were able to obtain one page of flight manifests for the period 1997 to 1998 (which Dershowitz had provided years ago to the officer) and 8 pages of others from one of Epstein's pilots, covering the years 1997 to 2005. They then allege that Dershowitz may have destroyed some flight records to protect himself. Their accusation is not the equivalent of corroboration.

One example: Her lawyers make a big deal of a flight record from 1998. Roberts has been giving interviews using her real name since 2011. A more detailed version is here. She told the Daily Mail then that Epstein didn't start lending her out to other men for sex until the second year she was with him. That would be 2000, at the earliest. Yet, they write:

For example, on February 9, 1998, Dershowitz flew on Epstein’s private plane from Palm Beach, Florida, to Teterboro, New Jersey. One of the passengers is listed as “1 female.” Exhibit 27. Who is that “female” – and what is her age?

Roberts says she was born in August, 1983. Since Roberts now says didn't begin working for Epstein until 1999, when she was 15, and she would have been 14 at the time of this flight in February 1998, what difference does it make who that female was? It couldn't have been Roberts.

Roberts states on the occasion she flew on Epstein’s plane with Dershowitz and had sex with him, another girl was present. She doesn't say the girl participated in sex. The name of the girl is blocked out. Her lawyers claim in their answer the girl was not only was present, but participated in the sex with Roberts and Dershowitz. They say this girl was over 18 but for privacy reasons, they aren't disclosing her name. Why doesn't Roberts version match her lawyers' version? Observing others have sex and participating in it are two different things.

Roberts' and her lawyers’ failure to include dates for any of the alleged episodes with Dershowitz is troubling. Previously, I've noted that while Roberts said in her Complaint against Epstein that she began working for Epstein in 1998, her lawyers have said in pleadings it was 1999. She now says in her Affidavit that it was 1999. ("I visited and traveled with Jeffrey Epstein from 1999 through the summer of 2002.)

Her civil complaint against Epstein filed in 2009 claimed she began working for him in the summer of 1998. From her Complaint:

A vulnerable young girl, Plaintiff was working as a changing room assistant at The Mar-A-Lago Club in Palm Beach making approximately $9 an hour when she was first lured into Defendant's sexually exploitative world. In or about the summer of 1998, when Plaintiff was merely fifteen years old while attending to her duties at Mar-A-Lago, Plaintiff was recruited by Ghislaine Maxwell, who lived, traveled, socialized, and worked with Defendant. Ms. Maxwell asked Plaintiff if she was interested in learning massage therapy and earning a great deal of money while learning the profession.

Plaintiffs father, who was a maintenance manager at The Mar-A-Lago Club, was not apprehensive because he felt comforted that an older woman had approached Plaintiff with this opportunity. As a result, Plaintiff's father dropped off Plaintiff at Defendant's mansion that same day. Ms. Maxwell met Plaintiff and her father outside of Defendant's Palm Beach mansion, where Ms. Maxwell assured the minor girl's father that Ms. Maxwell would provide transportation home for his teenaged daughter.

Roberts is equally vague about her age at the time of her encounters with Prince Andrew. While she claims she was 17 the first two times, she says in her Affidavit:

The third time I had sex with Andy was in an orgy on Epstein’s private island in the U.S. Virgin Islands. I was around 18 at the time. Epstein, Andy, approximately eight other young girls, and I had sex together. The other girls all seemed and appeared to be under the age of 18 and didn’t really speak English. (My emphasis.)

“Around 18?” When someone claims an adult had sex with her while she was a minor, shouldn't she at least be able to state under oath she was under 18? In earlier interviews with the Daily Mail, she has said she was over 18 during the third encounter with Andrew (while her lawyers, in their Dec. 30 motion to intervene, said she was under 18 at the time of all three encounters with Andrew.) A year matters.

In her affidavit, she provides this photo to show how young she looked in 1999 at age 15.

The Daily Mail has this photo of her in 1998 at her mother's house.

She looks much younger at age 15 or 16 in 1999 than she did at age 14 in 1998. How to explain the difference? She has said Epstein dressed her to make her look like a little girl. Epstein took the 1999 little girl photo of her. It's impossible to tell what she really looked like when she started working for him, but if she was 14 in her the photo taken at her mother's house in 1998, the photo Epstein took in 1999 seems contrived to make her look younger.

The lawyers also attach (as Exhibit 16) an old document submitted by Roberts' lawyer Bradley Edwards in 2010 in a prior civil suit between Epstein and Edwards, called “Undisputed Statement of Facts.” The court in that case denied lawyer Edwards' motion for summary judgment. (the Order is here.) These were not "undisputed facts" but lawyer Edwards' version of the facts.

[Added: Gawker has obtained 73 pages of flight logs and published them here. The logs were attached as an exhibit to the "Statement of Undisputed Facts" in the lawsuit between Epstein and Jane Doe #3's lawyer.]

I'll end with this inconsistency. The Government says in its response filed January 20 opposing Roberts’ motion to join the lawsuit of Jane Does #1 and #2 that her request is outside the statute of limitations. Her lawyers respond with this:

Jane Doe No. 3 will contest whether that statute of limitations even applies. But Jane Doe also intends to raise an equitable estoppel argument – that the statute was tolled while she was in hiding in Australia due to the danger posed by Epstein and his powerful friends. Her factual allegations – including the specific identities of those powerful persons – are clearly relevant to demonstrating the factual underpinnings for her estoppel argument.

Hiding in Australia due to the danger of Epstein and is powerful friends? Attached to the Government’s response is a partial transcript of a 2011 telephone conference call between her, her lawyer and her lawyer’s lawyer, which was filed in the state case in which Epstein sued her lawyer (Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 290-3). In it, she described her leaving Epstein this way:

[H]e sent me to Thailand, in September 2002. I was first supposed to meet a girl there and bring her back with me, but I never met up with her. I proceeded get a short course in Thai massage so that was to shut me up about my training so I went there, and one of my friends from school invited me to watch a fight, like a muay thai fight, which is like a form [of] kickboxing. So I went and watched it, and I saw this guy that was a really good fighter, and a girl’s word, looked really hot, so I asked my friend who knew him to introduce me.

We got introduced and fell in love immediately, 3 days later proposed and 7 days later I was being married in a buddist [sic] temple. I called Jeffrey and told him I’m sorry, I’m never coming back. I’ve gotten married, I’ve fallen in love. I thought he’d wish the best for me but he was kind of rude and he just said “have a good life” and hung up the phone, and that was the last time I’d talked to him ever until all this started again.

I don't recall her ever saying she stayed in Australia from 2002 on because of fear of Epstein. She and her husband chose to live there. In 2009, after having had contact with authorities she wasn't afraid to file her civil lawsuit for damages. Or to have her lawyer participate in the depositions of witnesses. Or to grant interviews to the British media using her real name, starting in 2011. Personally, I don’t find her lawyers’ argument that statute of limitations should be tolled for the years she was in Australia because she was in fear and hiding persuasive.

The Government also points out she told her lawyers in the recorded conversation that the FBI telephoned her in 2007 to discuss the Epstein investigation, and she told them she didn't want to be contacted again. (It wasn't until she got the notice in 2008 informing her she could sue and would be provided a lawyer that she apparently changed her mind.)

I think Dershowitz will lose his motion to intervene in the civil suit because since filing it, a separate libel suit has been filed in state court, so he has another forum to litigate the allegations. I think the Judge should deny her request to intervene in the Jane Doe lawsuit because of the statute of limitations. She has been represented by counsel since 2009 and filed other court actions. She collected damages in 2010 from Epstein. Her lawyer could joined her in this lawsuit years ago, but chose not to. That seems to me to have been a strategic decision.

Also today, Prince Andrew came out and personally denied her allegations.

As for former President Clinton, Roberts goes out of her way in her affidavit to clear him. She writes:

I have seen reports saying or implying that I had sex with former President Bill Clinton on Little Saint James Island. Former President Bill Clinton was present on the Island at a time when I was also present on the Island, but I have never had sexual relations with Clinton, nor have I ever claimed to have had such relations. I have never seen him have sexual relations with anyone.

Most libel cases seem to settle quietly, long after the initial filing, with the terms sealed. I doubt this one will be much different. For right now, we have a classic "He said, She said" and people will believe who they want to believe.