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

141–150 of 353 posts

Re: Jeffrey Epstein and MIT: FAQs

#141

Post by totalZero »

akersten wrote: post #65
root_axis wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The attorney general confirmed it was a suicide, so if we're to believe it was actually a surreptitious murder, it goes all the way to the top.

Considering his involvement in Iran-Contra and deliberate derailing of Congressional oversight, I wouldn't believe a word the current attorney general says. Especially because the case disappearing is clearly convenient for people personally connected to the AG, or to whom the AG owes a favor.

Not to mention that the AG runs the Bureau of Prisons.

Epstein was in Barr's custody.

Re: Jeffrey Epstein and MIT: FAQs

#142

Post by malvosenior »

mlyle wrote: post #131
throwaway21210 wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Harvard Professor Mark Newman also has similar shading dealings with Epstein. His own book, SuperCooperators [1], has nearly 3 whole pages dedicated to describing his experiences on Jeffery Epstein's Island, thanking him for all his support and basically sucking up to him by describing his (Epstein's) incredible intelligence. Stephen Hawking even makes an appearance in these stories with a talk about how Epstein rent…

Yah-- Epstein did something nice for Hawking -- unknown if before or after the conviction-- therefore one can reasonably expect that Hawking knew Epstein was raping underage girls on his island and that Hawking participated. /s

There were definitely young women around when Hawking was there. I don't know if they were underage, but it I don't think it's safe to say Hawking knew nothing. By all accounts the island was full of girls and decorated with photographs of nude photos of them (some underage).

You can see Hawking surrounded by women on the island here:

https://cloverchronicle.com/2019/07/24/stephen-hawking-pictu...

Re: Jeffrey Epstein and MIT: FAQs

#143

Post by totalZero »

gumby wrote: post #87
krick wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> To the contrary, members of MIT’s Senior Team were wary of Epstein and nearly returned his May 2013 donation, the first donation of which they became aware I love the word "nearly" here. Just saying.

I love the institute but I agree they really need to think hard about how it runs. The past 30 years have been a continuous project in weaning the institute off being merely a very large government research lab.* IMHO this process has not been successful. * with a small school bolted onto the side: the educational side of the institute is only 16% of the budget and is run at a small loss. This might explain their int…

The Institute doesn't deserve your love. It has a habit of not protecting young people in its own community. Now it's under fire for turning a blind eye to the abuse of young people by its donors.

Let the Institute burn. It brought this upon itself.

Re: Jeffrey Epstein and MIT: FAQs

#144

Post by perennate »

jandrese wrote: post #121
perennate wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The $60,000 gift in "2005 or 2006" is the only one the report says was deposited into his personal bank account. Because it was not sent to MIT, "this gift ... is not included in the $850,000 in" total donations the report indicates were accepted by MIT. In contrast, the $125,000 is included in the $850,000, as indicated by the breakdown in the table on page 9. Thus, though not stated explicitly, the report indicates…

Usually it means the professor is taking a break from teaching so they can focus on their research. There's no sabbatical police force though, so if the professor wants to hike the AT or backpack across Europe or something that's their prerogative.

Reif's e-mail [1] indicates he was forced into administrative leave, and that the leave was not Lloyd's decision.

> The actions of a senior faculty member have raised new concerns. In keeping with MIT practice on faculty discipline, I have asked his department head to consider any appropriate action. In the meantime, in consultation with the provost, dean and department head, I have placed him on leave.

Also I think administrative leave is different from other types of leave, which are all also different from sabbatical.

[1] http://news.mit.edu/2020/letter-president-reif-fact-finding-...

Re: Jeffrey Epstein and MIT: FAQs

#145

Post by thrwn_frthr_awy »

sonofaplum wrote: post #135
thrwn_frthr_awy wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I still don't understand. They knew in 2013. What exactly does "in response to revelations" mean then? What was the revelation? They've known. That sentences is bullshit and misleading at best.

MIT is not one person. The report details exactly who knew what, when. According to the report, the President of the institute (Reif) did not know until the reporting linking MIT with Epstein.

I'm not referring to the report. I'm talking about the FAQ. The answer is disingenuous and I believe purposefully written to make people unfamiliar with the details to believe MIT found out about the "revelations" in September or at some point around there. There was never a revelation. It was known.

> Senior members of the administration were aware of gifts the Media Lab received between 2013 and 2017 ... They knew in general terms about Epstein’s history – that he had been convicted and had served a sentence

Re: Jeffrey Epstein and MIT: FAQs

#146

Post by lkschubert8 »

briandear wrote: post #93
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 claim that he killed himself should also require evidence.

I think the idea is that "destruction" of evidence (the initial suicide tape), failure to gather evidence (specific cameras not operating the night of his death) and failure of protocol (him somehow being able to strangle/hang himself as a high profile person hours off of suicide watch) while not evidence are definitely cause for suspicion.

Re: Jeffrey Epstein and MIT: FAQs

#147

Post by dguaraglia »

ww520 wrote: post #132
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."

Funny how the players are all intertwined in the loss of the suicide video. https://i.redd.it/6pg6wj8toy941.png

Not in the picture: the President of the United States and very close friend to Epstein, Donald Trump.

Re: Jeffrey Epstein and MIT: FAQs

#148

Post by Waterluvian »

dctoedt wrote: post #124
Waterluvian wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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. That's a nice, more-memorable riff on Russell's Teapot [0]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot

Thanks for sharing! I knew this was "a thing" but I don't usually know the names of all these logic and philosophy things.

Re: Jeffrey Epstein and MIT: FAQs

#149

Post by josefx »

onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #72
Ohn0 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"America" is different than "everywhere in the world"

Where? Germany today definitely seems better than Nazi Germany -- copy that for almost all of Europe. Japan today is definitely better than Tojo. Russia today is probably better than Soviet Russia. Maybe it's worse. It's still bad. Copy that for China, but I can't imagine it's worse than Mao. South East Asia seems a lot better off without the Khmer Rogue running around. Isis is fucking up the middle east and MBS is t…

> Germany today definitely seems better than Nazi Germany

Meanwhile we had to drop a lawsuit against the NPD because the most vocal and hateful all turned out to be law enforcement. Makes you feel all warm and fuzzy, especially with the AFD reaching a nice 14% support.

> Copy that for China, but I can't imagine it's worse than Mao.

Blindly killing and starving your population for a rebuild from "scratch" vs. systematic eradication and organ harvesting. I am not sure if that counts as improvement, of course we get cheap crap from it so you might count it as a win.

> Isis is fucking up the middle east and MBS is terrible, but at least women have some rights and their courts aren't an absolute complete joke anymore.

Now if only some weird self styled world police stopped starting wars every few decades under the pretense of bringing peace. There are decades old pictures where the smoking ruins still looked a lot more western then they do now.

> Go back 300 years, and you could kill your wife almost anywhere for almost any reason.

And yet at least in Germany there were explicit laws covering "self defense against ones wife"[1]. While parsing that text hurt my brain (old German spelling + old German letters) the law text itself doesn't seem to paint the man involved in a good light from the start. So one attempt to find a law text in a language I can read and one success vs. "almost anywhere for almost any reason" - maybe I should play the lottery.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutio_Criminalis_Carolin...

Re: Jeffrey Epstein and MIT: FAQs

#150

Post by lkschubert8 »

pastor_elm wrote: post #139
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."

occam's razor says you're wrong.

Occam's razor isn't a law, just a heuristic.
Post reply on HN