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

201–210 of 353 posts

Re: Jeffrey Epstein and MIT: FAQs

#201

Post by gowld »

pvg wrote: post #184
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.

To avoid the appearance of impropriety, should people avoid hiring female assistants? I hope not.

Re: Jeffrey Epstein and MIT: FAQs

#202

Post by adventured »

malvosenior wrote: post #178
Jerry2 wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Haven't seen this being discussed anywhere: > In addition to his own donations, Epstein claimed to have arranged for donations to MIT from other wealthy individuals. In 2014, Epstein claimed to have arranged for Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates to provide an anonymous $2 million donation to the Media Lab. From the PDF linked above: http://factfindingjan2020.mit.edu/files/MIT-report.pdf

Gates had close ties to Epstein: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/12/business/jeffrey-epstein-... In fact, Epstein left his entire estate to Boris Nikolic (guy on the far right on that NYT picture). Nikolic worked for Gates for many years. This is Gates emailing co-workers after visiting Epstein: > After the meeting, Epstein emailed friends and associates to boast, writing "Bill's great" in one email reviewed by The T…

> Gates had close ties to Epstein

That's an extreme exaggeration that borders on character assassination - your linked article disagrees with your setup at every step (it notes repeatedly the limited nature of his interaction with Epstein). Gates met with Epstein a few times on the premise that he claimed he could raise billions of dollars for charitable causes Gates was associated with and otherwise did not have ties to him, did not do business with him or know him on a personal level.

Re: Jeffrey Epstein and MIT: FAQs

#203

Post by malvosenior »

gowld wrote: post #200
malvosenior wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Marvin Minsky was accused of assaulting Virgina Guiffre. Virginia had been trafficked by Epstein starting when she was 15. https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/08/new-details-in-unsea... > Giuffre also alleges Epstein and Maxwell told her to have sex with former New Mexico governor Bill Richardson; former Democratic Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell; the late MIT computer scientist Marvin Minsky; and MC2 model a…

Why does that say "Epstein and Maxwell told her to have sex with" and not "had sex with, as ordered by Epstein and Maxwell" ? Did Giuffre say that the sex happened?

Yes, she did claim that. Here's a better link:

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/article233728717.html

> In the lawsuit, Giuffre claimed she was forced to have sex with a “large amount of people,” some of whom had not previously been named, including former New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, former U.S. Senator George Mitchell, Hyatt hotels magnate Tom Pritzker, hedge fund manager Glenn Dubin, the late Massachusetts Institute of Technology scientist Marvin Minsky, modeling agent Jean-Luc Brunel, Dershowitz, Prince Andrew, another unnamed prince, plus “a well-known Prime Minister.”

Re: Jeffrey Epstein and MIT: FAQs

#204

Post by pvg »

gowld wrote: post #201
pvg wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

To avoid the appearance of impropriety, should people avoid hiring female assistants? I hope not.

To avoid the appearance and reality of impropriety, people should avoid sex trafficking and other crimes. I don’t understand what the relationship to ‘employing women assistants’ is supposed to be.

Re: Jeffrey Epstein and MIT: FAQs

#205

Post by hackinthebochs »

malvosenior wrote: post #199
hackinthebochs wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the concept of "professional event" has changed considerably in the last few decades. So judging what should or shouldn't have been known by the guests based on modern standards is a mistake. As far as nude pictures and paintings, were they clearly underage and non artistic? There's a lot of post hoc reasoning by those who want to spread blame around that doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

This wasn't a "few decades ago" it was 2015. The standards for professional events have not changed since then.

I wasn't talking about the most recent ones after his convictions and after people should have known to avoid him.

Re: Jeffrey Epstein and MIT: FAQs

#206

Post by svachalek »

jdminhbg wrote: post #157
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...

> You can see Hawking surrounded by women on the island here: I assumed from the description this was going to look like Stephen Hawking at the Playboy Mansion, but instead it's him at a bbq with two middle aged men and two middle aged women, and him in a submarine with a woman whose back is to the camera so you can't tell her age apart from not being gray-haired.

It's an interesting Rorschach test. I can see all kinds of things going on here, or nothing at all. The expression on the face of the nearest woman has a serious "not amused" vibe to it no matter how I try to look at the situation though.

Re: Jeffrey Epstein and MIT: FAQs

#207

Post by craftinator »

mlyle wrote: post #127
sequoia wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> 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. I think this is a dangerous way to look at things... Just because there's a lot of shady people doing awful things, doesn't mean we should tar everyone who associated with the person. Whatever other things happened with other people doesn't really matte…

> I think this is a dangerous way to look at things...

When I'm walking through my hometown and the tall grass next to me shakes, I think it's a rabbit or a dog or something. When I'm on the African plains in lion country and see the same thing, I think it's a lion. Bad association begets cynical assumption, because it's more often correct than incorrect.

Re: Jeffrey Epstein and MIT: FAQs

#208

Post by Alex3917 »

ergothus wrote: post #80
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, I live a fairly privileged life as a U.S. West Coast techie...and stopping at a private island for a few hours sounds crazy. Do non-billionaire people (active academics at that) really lead lives like this? `

> Do non-billionaire people (active academics at that) really lead lives like this?

If a billionaire calls you up and tells you they're sending their plane to pick you up if you're interested in going, then yes. That's fairly common, in terms of billionaires sending their planes to pick folks up they want to meet with, or letting others hitch a ride.

Re: Jeffrey Epstein and MIT: FAQs

#209

Post by droithomme »

voxic11 wrote: post #103
sequoia wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Yeah he got $60,000 as an unreported funding gift that bypassed normal research funding mechanisms and went into his private bank account and was actually spent on ???, followed by a $125,000 donation that apparently followed the same route in order to "support his sabbatical", and this is on top of the $225,000 that Dr. Lloyd got through official channels from Epstein.

The $185,000 made as alleged gifts to MIT but which went into Lloyd's bank accounts won't be returned by MIT or donated to charity, nor will the interest they earned on their investments from the officially given $850,000 money given over the last 15 years or so. And was there other side channel off the books funding beyond the $185,000 to Lloyd? Was he really the only one that saw huge sums of cash magically appear in his private bank account?

All interesting. Will Lloyd return the $185,000 or donate it? Was any of that cash declared as income on his tax returns?

So he says oh I just flew out to a Caribbean private island renowned for pedophilia for a brief lunch and nothing more, nothing to it, what's the big deal. Yeah... maybe that's what happened. We'll probably never know, but everyone that went to that island has a black mark.

Re: Jeffrey Epstein and MIT: FAQs

#210

Post by jsjohnst »

jdminhbg wrote: post #157
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...

> You can see Hawking surrounded by women on the island here: I assumed from the description this was going to look like Stephen Hawking at the Playboy Mansion, but instead it's him at a bbq with two middle aged men and two middle aged women, and him in a submarine with a woman whose back is to the camera so you can't tell her age apart from not being gray-haired.

The woman on the left is I believe someone I’ve seen frequently in photos with him. Not sure of her name or relationship to him.
Post reply on HN