Alan Dershowitz wants Congress to blow the doors open on the Jeffrey Epstein case. The Harvard Law professor emeritus appeared on Newsmax's "Sunday Report" to argue that lawmakers should fully investigate the circumstances of Epstein's 2019 death and release every related record to the public, without redactions.

The call arrives with new momentum. Tova Noel, one of the prison guards accused of failing to conduct regular checks on Epstein before his death, will testify before the House Oversight Committee on March 26.

Dershowitz, a former member of Epstein's legal team who has visited the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn "numerous times to see clients," laid out the case for deeper scrutiny with a bluntness that Washington rarely tolerates.

"We know there were people out there who had motives to try to silence him. We also know that he thought he had a chance of getting out on bail two or three days after they found his body, and so he really wasn't motivated to kill himself."

That framing matters. A man who believed freedom was days away does not fit the profile of someone who takes his own life. Dershowitz pressed the point further, stating plainly that "nobody knows who or how Epstein died."

The inside job question

Dershowitz did not shy away from the mechanics of what an alternative explanation would require. The Metropolitan Detention Center is a federal facility with layers of security. Getting to a high-profile detainee is not a casual affair.

"It's very hard to imagine anybody getting through the security of the Metropolitan Detention Center, which I have visited numerous times to see clients. It's very, very hard to get through there."

His conclusion followed logically:

"So if he was killed, it would have to have been an inside job, and it has to be investigated."

This is the uncomfortable territory that official Washington has spent years avoiding. The Epstein case sits at the intersection of wealth, political power, and institutional failure. The people who should have been asking these questions years ago had every reason not to. Guards who didn't check on their charge. Cameras that allegedly malfunctioned. A death that conveniently silenced the one man who could name names.

Dershowitz warned that without a real investigation, the case becomes permanent folklore:

"Otherwise, this is going to go down in history as one of those other unsolved mysteries, along with the Kennedy assassination and many others. And it's time to put it to rest."

No redactions, no restrictions

The professor's demand for transparency extended beyond the circumstances of Epstein's death. He called for open investigations into Epstein's New Mexico property, known as Zorro Ranch, which he said he visited when it was under construction and described as "a construction site" at the time.

But the broader principle mattered more than any single location. Dershowitz pushed for complete disclosure:

"This should be an open book. There should be no redactions. What the public needs to know is everything. Nothing restricted."

That standard should not be controversial. And yet, for years, Epstein-related records have been fought over in courtrooms, slow-walked through bureaucracies, and selectively released in ways that always seemed to protect the most powerful names involved. The American public has watched this pattern repeat long enough to draw its own conclusions about who benefits from the fog.

The Ghislaine Maxwell card

Perhaps the most strategically significant portion of Dershowitz's appearance involved Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein's longtime associate who is currently serving a federal prison sentence. Dershowitz described her as the key to unlocking the full scope of Epstein's network. "She is, in many ways, the Rosetta stone. She made the arrangements. She did the plane reservations and the hotel reservations. So she has a lot to offer."

Dershowitz argued that prosecutors should consider offering Maxwell a deal, potentially including early release, in exchange for full cooperation. He acknowledged the transactional nature of such arrangements: "Yes, but she has to be given something in response. That's the way things happen in the criminal justice system."

The calculation is straightforward. Maxwell possesses information that could identify both the guilty and the innocent. She arranged the logistics of Epstein's life, which means she knows who went where, when, and why. That knowledge has been locked inside a federal prison cell while the public has been left to speculate.

Dershowitz framed the stakes in terms that should appeal to anyone who claims to value justice:

"I hope she does say everything, give every piece of information out. Then the guilty people will be found out, and the innocent people will be exculpated. Both are as important under our system of justice."

Why this matters now

Tova Noel's upcoming testimony before the House Oversight Committee represents the first real institutional pressure point in this case in years. A prison guard who was supposed to be watching Epstein, and didn't, will answer questions under oath before Congress. What she says, and what she's asked, will reveal whether lawmakers are serious about accountability or simply staging a theater.

The Epstein case has always been a litmus test for whether the American justice system applies equally to the connected and the ordinary. Powerful people visited his properties. Powerful people flew on his planes. Powerful people benefited from his silence. The question Congress must now answer is, does the public deserve to know who those people are?

Dershowitz says yes. The facts say the same. The only people who benefit from continued secrecy are the ones the secrecy was designed to protect.