Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Jeffrey Epstein and MIT: FAQs

news.mit.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 353 posts

Re: Jeffrey Epstein and MIT: FAQs

#101

Post by mannykannot »

onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #46
ericfrenkiel wrote: post #24

Epstein didn't kill himself. Video footage "accidentally" deleted and the backup footage also lost due to "technical errors." His death and a cleanup so slovenly and brazenly done in front of the public eye is a mockery of America as a nation of "liberty and justice for all."

This happens MUCH less today than at any time in the past. Only 2 generations ago, stuff like this was happening on a daily basis everywhere in the world. This was basically what justice used to be. The world is not fair. There is little justice. But it's more fair and just than it's ever been before, by far. Maybe we've taken a step back in the last 10 years. It's hard to say. But compared to even 50 years ago, we a…

Well, that seems to be a fact, but it is not a reason to not regard it as suspicious, and not a reason to not investigate.

Re: Jeffrey Epstein and MIT: FAQs

#102

Post by Waterluvian »

at-fates-hands wrote: post #99
Waterluvian wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Great claims require great evidence. Your claim makes me increasingly skeptical, but I require a lot more. What is the best, least crackpot looking resource to dig into the _facts_?

A lot of the evidence seems to be anecdotal. I've heard multiple interviews of people who have worked in various functions over the years at MCC where Epstein was being held. All have noted how tight the security is (its often referred to as the "Gitmo of the East"), how so many failures would have to occur for him to be able to do what he did without anybody seeing it happen, or not have someone realize he was tryin…

Can you provide links to _anything_ you just said?

Re: Jeffrey Epstein and MIT: FAQs

#103

Post by voxic11 »

sequoia wrote: post #96
RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #20

From the report http://factfindingjan2020.mit.edu/files/MIT-report.pdf Professor Lloyd's dealings look very, very shady: > Professor Lloyd remained friends with Epstein after his conviction in 2008. He visited Epstein at his office in Florida during the period of Epstein’s criminal sentence. Professor Lloyd also visited Epstein’s private island, though for only a few hours for lunch, and he has acknowledged Epstein i…

> Professor Lloyd also visited Epstein’s private island, though for only a few hours for lunch Normally one would give the benefit of the doubt, but given the abhorrent acts people were perpetrating or turning a blind eye to in this case, I'm inclined not to. Hence this question of fact: Unless there are credible witnesses attesting to the fact that he spent his few hours on that island eating lunch, the report shoul…

I think the claim that he was stopping by for lunch is important to report on. But it should have been presented as a claim along with the source of the claim, rather than just asserted as fact.

Re: Jeffrey Epstein and MIT: FAQs

#104

Post by Supermancho »

Waterluvian wrote: post #89
grey-area wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The cctv footage existed, it has now been ‘accidentally deleted’. The chances of this happening on a high profile case are infinitesimally small. So on the contrary the great claim requiring evidence is that this was a completely normal suicide in prison. Where is the evidence this video was deleted by mistake? https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2020/01/10/us/09reuters-peop...

I hear you. But the absence of evidence is not evidence of a crime. You've got your reasoning inverted. "Show me the evidence that there isn't a giant space walrus on the far side of Neptune. Otherwise we must conclude there is one. " I'd like links to sensible aggregate sources and discussion. I don't want to have the discussion here.

Debating that there wasn't a conspiracy is different than debating if he killed himself (which can't be proven). So far, there has been a coordinated effort to obscure accountability and records. This is SOP for the US Federal Government, when trying to hide misdeeds from the US population. Typically, we only get windows into what happened later when political opponents need ammunition or decades later when there are deathbed admissions.

Re: Jeffrey Epstein and MIT: FAQs

#105

Post by [deleted] »

grey-area wrote: post #88
Waterluvian wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Great claims require great evidence. Your claim makes me increasingly skeptical, but I require a lot more. What is the best, least crackpot looking resource to dig into the _facts_?

The cctv footage existed, it has now been ‘accidentally deleted’. The chances of this happening on a high profile case are infinitesimally small. So on the contrary the great claim requiring evidence is that this was a completely normal suicide in prison. Where is the evidence this video was deleted by mistake? https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2020/01/10/us/09reuters-peop...

[deleted]

Re: Jeffrey Epstein and MIT: FAQs

#106

Post by ben509 »

Waterluvian wrote: post #89
grey-area wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The cctv footage existed, it has now been ‘accidentally deleted’. The chances of this happening on a high profile case are infinitesimally small. So on the contrary the great claim requiring evidence is that this was a completely normal suicide in prison. Where is the evidence this video was deleted by mistake? https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2020/01/10/us/09reuters-peop...

I hear you. But the absence of evidence is not evidence of a crime. You've got your reasoning inverted. "Show me the evidence that there isn't a giant space walrus on the far side of Neptune. Otherwise we must conclude there is one. " I'd like links to sensible aggregate sources and discussion. I don't want to have the discussion here.

His name is Bert, and he's just visiting Neptune, it's not like he lives there.

Re: Jeffrey Epstein and MIT: FAQs

#107

Post by wwweston »

mhh__ wrote: post #91
ericfrenkiel wrote: post #24

Epstein didn't kill himself. Video footage "accidentally" deleted and the backup footage also lost due to "technical errors." His death and a cleanup so slovenly and brazenly done in front of the public eye is a mockery of America as a nation of "liberty and justice for all."

I think it's more likely that he or people around him pulled strings so he could kill himself rather than he be killed.

If he's powerful enough to pull strings to kill himself, why wouldn't he pull strings to disappear?

If I want a conspiracy theory involving Epstein's power here, it's going to be that this is how you disappear if you're powerful enough, and the phrase "Epstein didn't kill himself" is correct not because his death wasn't a suicide, but because it's not his death.

Re: Jeffrey Epstein and MIT: FAQs

#108

Post by roenxi »

dr_dshiv wrote: post #36
ericfrenkiel wrote: post #24

Epstein didn't kill himself. Video footage "accidentally" deleted and the backup footage also lost due to "technical errors." His death and a cleanup so slovenly and brazenly done in front of the public eye is a mockery of America as a nation of "liberty and justice for all."

Kind of impressive, and nice in a way - - since it is so obviously corrupt and we become aware of it because the case is so high profile. Makes you wonder who pulled it off and how often things like it occur.

Epstein might still be alive and the whole thing some sort of elaborate witness protection scheme to protect him from all of the people who want him dead. So there might not be corruption all the way to the top.

Corruption seems like an easier explanation though.

Re: Jeffrey Epstein and MIT: FAQs

#109

Post by _jal »

ericb wrote: post #26
malvosenior wrote: post #8

The report itself is rather interesting: http://factfindingjan2020.mit.edu/files/MIT-report.pdf > After meeting Epstein in February 2013, Ito conducted what he described as “due diligence” into Epstein. Ito told us that he performed a Google search of Epstein and also spoke with certain individuals to learn more. According to Ito, the “influential” people with whom he spoke included Nicholas Negroponte, Media Lab co-…

Makes one think twice about the value of social proof. Epstein was like a landing page with customer logos from LinkedIn, Microsoft, MIT, and Harvard.

I think social proof is quite valuable, just not in a way that is positive for Ito, Dershowitz, Negroponte, etc.

Social proof has usefully demonstrated exactly what they are.

Re: Jeffrey Epstein and MIT: FAQs

#110

Post by malvosenior »

Waterluvian wrote: post #102
at-fates-hands wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of the evidence seems to be anecdotal. I've heard multiple interviews of people who have worked in various functions over the years at MCC where Epstein was being held. All have noted how tight the security is (its often referred to as the "Gitmo of the East"), how so many failures would have to occur for him to be able to do what he did without anybody seeing it happen, or not have someone realize he was tryin…

Can you provide links to _anything_ you just said?

Epstein's was the first suicide in MCC in 21 years:

https://nypost.com/2019/08/10/suicide-supposedly-nearly-impo...

Post reply on HN