161–170 of 353 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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? `
https://newrepublic.com/article/154826/jeffrey-epsteins-inte...
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...
Even if they are ([citation needed] on the claim that the high profile nature of the case decreases the odds of mechanical accident), infinitesimally small events can still happen once. The fact they happened at a time most inconvenient for holding a wealthy man accountable doesn't change the nature of probability.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I admit I was one of the lucky ones for whom it was an almost perfect environment. But even as an undergraduate I had no illusion that I was there to "attend school". I was there to learn AND do.
I am really soory if it screwed you. I have friends who had that experience.
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...
> The chances of this happening on a high profile case are infinitesimally small. You're claiming that the chances of this are infinitesimally small comes off a bit tautological. It kind of feels like you're /saying/ it's infinitesimally small because /if/ that were in fact true, it /might/ help your claim.
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.
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…
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 protections and the FBI can go over them at its leisure to string together a case against his accomplices or any who used his "services" to arrange illegal sexual encounters.
(... civil trial burden of proof is mere "preponderance of evidence," and IIUC his estate is seeking civil trial, so they may win that case, make of that what one will).
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...
> The chances of this happening on a high profile case are infinitesimally small Even if they are ([citation needed] on the claim that the high profile nature of the case decreases the odds of mechanical accident), infinitesimally small events can still happen once. The fact they happened at a time most inconvenient for holding a wealthy man accountable doesn't change the nature of probability.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Again, _any_ solid links about this discussion? The main tell tale sign of crackpots is that they'll tell you a big earful of conspiracy. If they had a solid case they'd just share a link to a solid case. A link with analysis filled with references all the way down to primary sources. I'm always so dissatisfied when I ask for evidence for these things.
But there are also serious questions that need to be answered - a very, very long list of serious questions about very important and influential people involved in some very suspicious events that culminated in some very rare and unusual security lapses.
Linking anyone asking those questions to "crackpots" is simply disingenuous.
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…
My jaw dropped when I read page 9 of the report, it says "Professor Minsky (who passed away in 2016) had worked with Epstein to organize an off-campus conference on artificial intelligence that same year." That's quite a charitable characterization! The conference in question wasn't just any "off-campus conference" -- it was held on Epstein's island. Minsky had also organized a two-day symposium on Epstein's island s…
What boggles my mind is why they’re being so tight lipped about the investigation. The island was swarming with FBI, including scuba divers. Why not a single statement? Nothing!