The Epstein archive contains an unexpected artifact: pages from what appears to be a legal manuscript or book written by Alan Dershowitz, Epstein's longtime defense attorney. HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017239.jpg contains several pages discussing privacy law, First Amendment rights, and notably, a case involving nude photographs of 10-year-old Brooke Shields.
The document raises an obvious question: why would House Oversight investigators preserve pages from a Dershowitz legal writing in their files? The answer likely lies in understanding how Dershowitz's stated legal philosophy related to his defense strategies in the Epstein case.
The Brooke Shields Case
The excerpt describes a case where Brooke Shields, at age 17 and preparing to enter Princeton, tried to prevent publication of nude photographs taken when she was 10 years old. According to the document, her mother Teri had signed a contract with a photographer allowing unlimited publication rights. Shields was paid $450 by Playboy Press for the sessions.
The document states: "Seven years later, as Brooke was about the enter Princeton as a freshman, the photographer decided to exploit her fame by producing a calendar featuring naked pictures of the 10 year old. Brooke was upset that any such calendar would circulate among her fellow students at Princeton and would cause her great embarrassment."
Dershowitz writes that Shields hired a former student of his to negotiate with the photographer. The document cuts off mid-sentence, but the case he references is real: Shields v. Gross, a 1983 New York case where the court ruled against Shields, finding the contract her mother signed was binding.
Privacy Versus Publication
The broader context of this excerpt matters. Dershowitz frames his discussion around the tension between privacy rights and First Amendment protections. He writes: "The conflict between privacy and publication becomes particularly sensitive when they privacy at issue relates to minors."
Earlier in the same excerpt, he discusses being targeted by a cartoon he found offensive, commissioned by Norman Finkelstein, depicting him masturbating while watching Israeli military actions. Dershowitz writes: "Since I am clearly a public figure, and since this was plainly a parody, it was protected speech under the First Amendment. To be a First Amendment lawyer requires developing thick skin."
The juxtaposition is revealing. Dershowitz presents himself as someone who accepts offensive speech directed at him as the price of First Amendment protections, then pivots to discussing cases involving children and nude photographs.
Why Investigators Kept This Document
House Oversight investigators likely preserved these pages because they illuminate Dershowitz's legal thinking about cases involving minors and visual material. In the Epstein case, questions about photographs and videos were central to the investigation. Victims testified about being photographed. Searches of Epstein's properties yielded extensive photographic evidence.
The document shows Dershowitz wrestling with when privacy rights should override publication rights, particularly for minors. But his conclusion in the Shields case appears to favor the contract and publication rights over the privacy interests of a child who was photographed nude at age 10.
This legal philosophy would later inform his defense work for Epstein, where he consistently argued that evidence should be suppressed, that prosecutorial conduct was improper, and that various procedural protections should shield his client from accountability.
The Document Context
The page is marked "4.2.12" at the top and includes a reference number "WC: 191694." These appear to be manuscript tracking codes. The HOUSE_OVERSIGHT source designation indicates this was material obtained during congressional investigation.
How did congressional investigators obtain pages from what appears to be a Dershowitz manuscript? Possibilities include: it was found in Epstein's possession, it was produced during discovery in civil cases, or it was provided as part of document requests to Dershowitz himself during the investigation.
The document references Brandeis's 1890 Harvard Law Review article "The Right to Privacy," a foundational text in American privacy law. Dershowitz positions himself in this intellectual tradition while discussing how privacy and publication rights collide when children are involved.
The Broader Pattern
This document fits into a larger pattern in the archive where Dershowitz's legal work and writing appear repeatedly. He was not just Epstein's attorney but also an intellectual defender who published op-eds, gave interviews, and wrote about the case in legal and public forums.
The manuscript excerpt shows him constructing legal arguments about children, photographs, and privacy rights. Whether these specific arguments were deployed in Epstein's defense is unclear from this document alone, but they represent the intellectual framework Dershowitz brought to the case.
The fact that investigators preserved this particular section, with its focus on a case involving nude photographs of a child, suggests they saw relevance to their investigation. They were building a record not just of what Epstein did, but of how his legal team thought about defending such actions.
What We Learn
The document reveals how Dershowitz's broader legal philosophy shaped his approach to defending Epstein. His emphasis on First Amendment protections, his arguments about privacy law, and his discussion of cases involving minors and photographs all provide context for understanding his defense strategies.
It also demonstrates how thoroughly investigators documented not just Epstein's actions but the legal and intellectual infrastructure that surrounded him. By preserving these manuscript pages, they created a record of the arguments his defenders made and the legal tradition they claimed to represent.
The archive contains 196 views of this document so far, suggesting other researchers have found these pages significant. They offer a window into how one of America's most prominent criminal defense attorneys thought about cases involving children, images, and competing legal rights, all while defending a client accused of systematically exploiting minors.