HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017303.jpg

2.09 MB

Extraction Summary

5
People
3
Organizations
1
Locations
3
Events
3
Relationships
4
Quotes

Document Information

Type: Book manuscript / memoir draft
File Size: 2.09 MB
Summary

This document appears to be a page from a manuscript or memoir (possibly by Alan Dershowitz) discussing the moral conflict of a defense attorney. The author recounts a specific legal victory involving the 'Hurok bombing' where he utilized the status of an informant, Sheldon Seigel, and an unlawful wiretap to secure the release of clients he knew were guilty of killing a woman named Iris Kones. The text details the judge's anger directed at the attorney and the attorney's lingering guilt over the 'legally proper' but unjust result.

People (5)

Name Role Context
Narrator Defense Attorney
The author of the text (likely Alan Dershowitz based on context of Hurok bombing defense), reflecting on the guilt of...
Iris Kones Victim
Innocent young woman killed in the Hurok bombing.
Sheldon Seigel (Siegel) Informer / Defendant
His status as an informer and unlawful wiretap discovery led to the case dismissal. Died young after a heart transplant.
Trial Judge Judge
Forced to release the defendants; scolded the lawyer for being responsible for injustice.
Client / Co-defendants Defendants
Perpetrators of the bombing who admitted guilt but were set free due to legal technicalities.

Organizations (3)

Name Type Context
United States Court of Appeals
Issued the ruling ordering the trial judge to set the defendants free.
Harvard University
Institution where Iris Kones' family is active.
House Oversight Committee
Source of the document production (Footer stamp).

Timeline (3 events)

Past Event
Release of defendants in Hurok bombing case
Courtroom
Narrator Judge Defendants
Past Event
Death of Sheldon Seigel
Not specified
Sheldon Seigel
Past Event (1972 context implied)
Hurok bombing
Not specified in text
Defendants Iris Kones

Locations (1)

Location Context
Location where the judge released the defendants and delivered the admonishment.

Relationships (3)

Narrator Attorney/Victim Iris Kones
Narrator feels responsible for freeing the men who killed her.
Narrator Attorney/Client or Informant Sheldon Seigel
Narrator used Seigel's status to win the case.
Iris Kones' Family Adversarial/Social Narrator
Family constantly reminds narrator of his role in freeing the murderers.

Key Quotes (4)

"Do you know who isn’t in court today? Iris Kones."
Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017303.jpg
Quote #1
"And you are responsible."
Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017303.jpg
Quote #2
"I suspect there were others as well, but I can’t be absolutely sure of any but Iris Kones, because my client in that case told me, and the world, that he was guilty."
Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017303.jpg
Quote #3
"His premature death didn’t make me feel any less responsible for the unjust, but legally proper, result I helped produce on his case."
Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017303.jpg
Quote #4

Full Extracted Text

Complete text extracted from the document (2,784 characters)

4.2.12
WC: 191694
not to kill. Because the bomb was inherently dangerous and caused death, the perpetrators were indicted for capital murder.
In the end, I was able to capitalize on Siegel’s status as an informer, the fact that he was first discovered by the use of an unlawful wiretap, and the promises that were made to him in order to secure his cooperation. We obtained a legal ruling from the United States Court of Appeals that ordered the trial judge to set all the defendants free.
As the trial judge implemented that decision, my client and his co-defendants started to leave the courtroom, congratulating each other and laughing. The judge turned to them in anger and said, “Do you know who isn’t in court today? Iris Kones.” As my thoughts turned to the innocent victim of the Hurok bombing, I heard the judge’s voice grow louder and angrier: “Someone has committed a dastardly, vicious, unforgettable crime; someone is frustrating the administration of justice in a case that, in my mind, involves murder. People who deliberately do so will learn the power of the law even if there are those who have literally gotten away with murder.” While enunciating these final words, the judge averted his eyes from the young defendants and focused them directly at me, almost as if to say, “And you are responsible.”
His words went through me like a knife. Never had I been so uncomfortable as I was then, with the case over and my client entirely victorious. He was right. In one sense I was responsible: I had devised the novel legal strategy that resulted in the release of guilty defendants whose crime had caused the death of an innocent young woman.
I sat in court for a full hour after everyone else had left. I wanted no part of the victory celebration. I could not forget Iris Kones. I’ve thought of her often and of other victims of my clients who have gone free because of my legal arguments and my investigative work. I think especially of Iris Kones because she is the only homicide victim who I know was killed by defendants who I know were guilty and went free. I suspect there were others as well, but I can’t be absolutely sure of any but Iris Kones, because my client in that case told me, and the world, that he was guilty.
I also think of Iris Kones because her family—who are active in both Jewish causes and Harvard University—constantly remind me, and all of our mutual friends and associates, of my role in freeing the murderers of their relative.
Although I don’t believe in divine justice, it is true that Sheldon Seigel died at a very young age after an unsuccessful heart transplant. His premature death didn’t make me feel any less responsible for the unjust, but legally proper, result I helped produce on his case.
216
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017303

Discussion 0

Sign in to join the discussion

No comments yet

Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document