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

181–190 of 353 posts

Re: Jeffrey Epstein and MIT: FAQs

#181

Post by ehsankia »

shadowgovt wrote: post #166
ehsankia wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So if, for example, a crime happens with 10 witness, and all 10 witness start dying one by one, will you simply say that there is no evidence the crime and forget about it? In this case, there may not be any bulletproof evidence, but everything around the case that could've gone wrong has gone wrong, to the point where it's no longer statistically plausible to be a mistake. Everything in the system had redundancy yet…

I'd be more convinced if there weren't reasonable explanations for every one of these facts already in the public record. At this point, were this an actual criminal trial, proof of homicide is way far out there. Further, if someone powerful was worried he'd implicate them, killing him is a terrible way to keep the secret. With him dead, his effects and possessions are now no longer subject to Constitutional privacy…

That's assuming someone hasn't already gone and taken out whatever proof there was from his island. There have been drone footage taken by people showing how things were taken from his mansion.

https://www.redstate.com/brandon_morse/2019/08/13/computer-r...

Re: Jeffrey Epstein and MIT: FAQs

#182

Post by ghaff »

totalZero wrote: post #151
sonofaplum wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

According to Reif himself, he signed a "letter thanking Jeffrey Epstein for a gift to Seth Lloyd ... on August 16, 2012, about six weeks into my presidency." So it would stand to reason that Reif knew about the relationship with Epstein, dating back to at least 2012.

You’re talking about basically a form letter that he probably signs approximately a zillion of. I even have one.

Re: Jeffrey Epstein and MIT: FAQs

#183

Post by tptacek »

zamalek wrote: post #30
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."

Irrespective of the trueness or falseness of this, it is completely off-topic.

This comment is downvoted, but shouldn't be: "Epstein didn't kill himself" clearly is off-topic for the thread, and the resulting "discussion" ate the whole thread. 'zamalek is absolutely right.

Re: Jeffrey Epstein and MIT: FAQs

#184

Post by pvg »

pledess wrote: post #171

> Epstein was joined by one or two female assistants who appeared to be in their twenties, which made some people uncomfortable ... A Media Lab staff member told us that she was "grossed out" during of one Epstein's visits to the Media Lab, both because ... and because Epstein brought female assistants in their twenties with him. Is anyone interpreting this as "At MIT, it's reasonable to be prejudiced against young w…

People are, quite sensibly, prejudiced against someone convicted of sex crimes involving the exploitation of young women traveling with young women. The prejudice is against him, not the women. The incident and the reactions of the staff involved has been documented in greater detail elsewhere, you can just google it up.

Re: Jeffrey Epstein and MIT: FAQs

#185

Post by shadowgovt »

ehsankia wrote: post #181
shadowgovt wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd be more convinced if there weren't reasonable explanations for every one of these facts already in the public record. At this point, were this an actual criminal trial, proof of homicide is way far out there. Further, if someone powerful was worried he'd implicate them, killing him is a terrible way to keep the secret. With him dead, his effects and possessions are now no longer subject to Constitutional privacy…

That's assuming someone hasn't already gone and taken out whatever proof there was from his island. There have been drone footage taken by people showing how things were taken from his mansion. https://www.redstate.com/brandon_morse/2019/08/13/computer-r...

The FBI took evidence into custody. Beyond that, I wouldn't trust RedState's analysis without independent confirmation items are missing.

Re: Jeffrey Epstein and MIT: FAQs

#186

Post by hackinthebochs »

malvosenior wrote: post #142
mlyle wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Why would a billionaire being surrounded by young woman be a red flag? Being a billionaire is enough to explain their presence without any hint of coercion.

Re: Jeffrey Epstein and MIT: FAQs

#187

Post by generationP »

gumby wrote: post #172
ericb wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 replied "this is an excellent analogy" and it was voted down. On the assumption that I was too brief, I'll try again. From the early 40s through the early 90s MIT was essentially entirely (> 80%) funded by various organs of the US government (I used to read the budget when I was a student, and nowadays the development office sends me the budget). With the end of the Cold War that era came to an end. Interestingly N…

> Building 2 actually has a name but who really knows it?

It helps that rooms are numbered with the building number up front (e.g., 2-351 is building 2 floor 3 room 51), so the number is much more informative than the name.

Also, it's only been the Simons building for 4-5 years or so; before that it was just building 2.

Re: Jeffrey Epstein and MIT: FAQs

#188

Post by elfexec »

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…

> This happens MUCH less today than at any time in the past.

Really? You know this how?

> Only 2 generations ago, stuff like this was happening on a daily basis everywhere in the world.

And it magically stopped?

> This was basically what justice used to be.

As opposed to justice now being what money can buy?

> But it's more fair and just than it's ever been before

I disagree. The world is just as fair and just as it's ever been before. This is just recency bias like how the enlightenment crowd painted the period before them as the "dark ages" where no learning or progress was made.

> But compared to even 50 years ago, we are so far ahead it's unbelievable.

Maybe if we cherrypick some parts or aspects.

> 100 years, and it's basically a different world.

Humans are still humans.

Things aren't as terrible as you think they were. Things aren't as terrible today as some think. Things aren't as great as some think they were. Things aren't as great today as some think.

Re: Jeffrey Epstein and MIT: FAQs

#189

Post by malvosenior »

hackinthebochs wrote: post #186
malvosenior wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Why would a billionaire being surrounded by young woman be a red flag? Being a billionaire is enough to explain their presence without any hint of coercion.

Because it was supposed to be a professional event and that's not even remotely professional? There's a second hand account in this thread by someone who knows people who went to the island and were propositioned for sex there.

It's unprofessional at best but as we know know, many of these girls were sex trafficking victims and underage.

It's also known that Epstein's island residence was decorated with pictures of underage nude girls and a giant nude painting of Ghlisaine Maxwell. So yeah, I'd say there are quite a few red flags there.

Re: Jeffrey Epstein and MIT: FAQs

#190

Post by dctoedt »

Waterluvian wrote: post #148
dctoedt wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

We could call it Blakey's Walrus?
Post reply on HN