I think the likely existence of evidence in pretty incriminating form (like photos and videos) is the best argument in favor of Dershowitz telling the truth. He doesn’t know what all exists - he can’t possibly know. Even if he thinks it was destroyed, he could never be sure there aren’t copies yet in existence. To lie when it comes down to one person’s word against anothers is one thing, but to lie when incontrovertible evidence is likely to come out is stupid, and Dersh is not stupid.
I have no idea who did what but just based on logical thinking, his confidence that nothing will disprove his claims of innocence are the best argument that they’re true.
However I am not convinced by any of his statements about others, e.g. Bill Clinton, because once again he cannot possibly know. So I think that is a lawyerly attempt to discredit ALL claims by Guiffre on the basis that SOME of them (regarding Dersh) may not be accurate. That’s why each of her claims needs to be investigated and weighed separately. No “guilt OR innocence by association” either, Professor!
ANd then if Dersh is claiming P. Andrew and BJC are not guilty, that is just as damning. It’ll all just have to come out with evidence.
Why on earth was Dersh “associating” Epstein for “academic discussions” at Pedo Island? What intellectual discussions could be had about human trafficking, prostitution, or transporting minors for the purpose of having sex?