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

81–90 of 353 posts

Re: Jeffrey Epstein and MIT: FAQs

#81

Post by [deleted] »

bronson wrote: post #47
malvosenior wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, and the LinkedIn co-founder is obviously Reid Hoffman. Here's a series of Tweets from Aanand Giridharadas talking about discovering some of this information and how they reacted to it: https://twitter.com/AnandWrites/status/1169947031806365696

That was a great and horrifying read. They're circling the wagons. > Why are the people not connected to Epstein leaving this orbit, while people connected to Epstein remain? > Shouldn't it be the other way around?

[deleted]

Re: Jeffrey Epstein and MIT: FAQs

#82

Post by gumby »

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.

This is an excellent analogy.

Re: Jeffrey Epstein and MIT: FAQs

#83

Post by hitekker »

krick wrote: post #38
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-…

> 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.

Yep, they're trying to save face.

Re: Jeffrey Epstein and MIT: FAQs

#84

Post by kgwxd »

root_axis wrote: post #43
dr_dshiv wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

Or maybe the attorney generals public statement is confirmed suicide, as to not be suicided himself, but meanwhile reaching out to uncorrupt allies that can investigate the murder wide-eyed-optimist-face?

Re: Jeffrey Epstein and MIT: FAQs

#85

Post by malvosenior »

gumby wrote: post #75
sxcurry wrote: post #66

1) Negroponte responded: “I know him quite well. The person who is his closest friend is Marvin Minsky, who even visited him in jail. I would take Berlusconi’s money, so why not Jeff.” (By March 2013, Berlusconi, the former Prime Minister of Italy, had been accused of hiring underaged prostitutes and dating underaged girls.) 2)“I’ve also talked to Nicholas [Negroponte] as well who had met him and he also agrees that…

I'm really surprise Marvin visited him in jail. It's not out of character of him (he was really a kind human) but I'm surprised he had that close a relationship. I like Nicholas a lot but some of his remarks do surprise me.

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 agency cofounder Jean Luc Brunel, as well as an unnamed “prince,” “foreign president,” and owner of “a French hotel chain.” Giuffre previously alleged she had been forced by Epstein and Maxwell to have sex with lawyer Alan Dershowitz and Britain’s Prince Andrew.

Re: Jeffrey Epstein and MIT: FAQs

#86

Post by willis936 »

simlevesque wrote: post #52
teachrdan wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would appear to be $50,000 plus $125,000 if I'm reading that last note correctly.

the last note says "send to mit", not "send to lloyd" so I'm not sure

“ps make sure my work gets paid this time so they can pay me to take an extended vacation”

Re: Jeffrey Epstein and MIT: FAQs

#87

Post by gumby »

krick wrote: post #38
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-…

> 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 interest in Epstein.

Re: Jeffrey Epstein and MIT: FAQs

#88

Post by grey-area »

Waterluvian wrote: post #73
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."

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...

Re: Jeffrey Epstein and MIT: FAQs

#89

Post by Waterluvian »

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...

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.

Re: Jeffrey Epstein and MIT: FAQs

#90

Post by gizmo385 »

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...

> 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.

Post reply on HN