A former defense lawyer at the center of one of the most infamous cases of our time has ignited a storm by insisting that two New York courts — not any current administration — are the real gatekeepers of explosive records. His claims overturn the internet’s favorite theory about a hidden “list,” hinting instead at redacted affidavits, sealed rulings, and judges fiercely guarding the identities of alleged vict.
The situation surrounding the Epstein records underscores how legal procedure can collide with public expectations of transparency. Alan Dershowitz maintains that there is no single, secret “client list,” but rather FBI affidavits and related filings that judges ordered partially sealed to protect accusers and others referenced in sensitive material. Under this account, it is the federal courts in New York that control access to the remaining redactions, not a president, agency head, or political operative deciding what the public may see.
At the same time, continuing motions to unseal additional documents, including older grand jury materials, show that public interest in the case has not faded. Judges in Florida and New York have been methodical, weighing privacy, safety, and due process against legitimate demands for scrutiny. While most prominent names tied to Epstein have already emerged through reporting and litigation, the fragments still withheld sustain questions about institutional judgment, victim protection, and how far transparency should extend.