11 ms·

> 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

> 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 should refrain from speculation and simply say "he visited Epstein's island for a few hours." We don't know what he was doing.

voxic11 7y ago
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.
- droithomme 7y ago
  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.
  - awb 7y ago
    Why did Epstein transfer money to Lloyd though? If Lloyd was taking advantage of Epstein's island, wouldn't one expect money to be flowing from Lloyd to Epstein?
    - hanniabu 7y ago
      Maybe he connect Epstein with high end clients, some sort of finder fee. Or it could possible be a finder fee for women if you want to make those allegations.
    - michaelt 7y ago
      If you donate $5,000 to a university they will invite you to one or two events a year where they show you the kind of research donations have been supporting, some students who received bursaries say how it let them buy books and focus on their studies, and the head of the university gives a speech about their vision for the future of the school. Important-sounding academics and administrators will circulate and talk to you as a peer. Or, from a more cynical point of view, they make you feel important/distinguished/part of their community, in hopes of soliciting further donations in the future. I assume, if you donate $50,000,000 they knock that up several notches.
mlyle 7y ago
> 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 matter. Instead we should look at the facts for each case (visited Epstein's island where bad things had happened, and accepted money from Epstein in an unusual way).
- sequoia 7y ago
  > I think this is a dangerous way to look at things That's a fair point. I should have said "while a small technical oversight such as stating 'he went for lunch' as a fact (absent proof) would normally not be worth highlighting, the facts of this case make me feel that even such small technical oversights should be avoided or highlighted when they occur." By "the facts of this case" I mean the facts that 1) Epstein appears to have been guilty of trafficking many underage girls and directing them to have sex with friends or business partners of his and 2) this guy who had other inappropriate/unethical dealings with Epstein went to his island, for a few hours. Basically I'm saying they should just say "This friend of Epstein made a 3 hour visit to him on pedophile island" which are the only known facts. Not saying he did anything, but neither should the report claim he didn't unless they have evidence. Just stick to the facts.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- samstave 7y ago
  >I think this is a dangerous way to look at things No it is not. Its sound. >Whatever other things happened with other people doesn't really matter. YES. They Do! The guy was trafficking kids for sex and blackmail, and was frequently ferrying high profile people to his island which to every account was used for sex acts with minors. The witnesses are many. His ties to Mossad, high powered elites in royal and political circles globally are well documented, his personal fixer/trafficker, Maxwell, is still MIA, assumed to be protected by those involved in this - with close ties to people in the UN and in compromising situations such as the Silsbey event in Haiti etc... It stinks to high heaven and it is foolish to deny the literal mountains of evidence. It just came out that Comey's daughter was responsible for the deleted tapes from the prison FFS... This case is unbelievably bad.
SkyMarshal 7y ago
To be honest it's not even clear that "for a few hours" is fact. It doesn't appear to be footnoted or sourced in the report. Visiting a private island in the Caribbean from your home base in Boston is a full day affair. Total one-way travel time from MIT campus to that island is about half a day. Seems at least as likely to have been an overnight trip.
- droithomme 7y ago
  page 12: > 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 in his academic publications. While Professor Lloyd clearly valued Epstein as a source of potential funding, he also told us he believed that, by continuing to engage with Epstein post-conviction, he could be part of Epstein’s rehabilitation. The way it's phrased it isn't clear if this was a one time visit or multiple times. "He visited the island" is an ambiguous statement as regards one time or many.
- freepor 7y ago
  It’s a 3 hour direct flight which can be a 3 hour trip in a private jet. But I don’t think you get to claim it was for lunch unless you can prove it. Why would someone go so far for lunch?
  - celticmusic 7y ago
    For the same reason you would show up at Bill Gates house for lunch if you were invited.
    - freepor 7y ago
      Yah, worlds greatest philanthropist and infamous child rapist are not quite equivalent...
      - michaelt 7y ago

voxic11 7y ago

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.

droithomme 7y ago
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.
- awb 7y ago
  Why did Epstein transfer money to Lloyd though? If Lloyd was taking advantage of Epstein's island, wouldn't one expect money to be flowing from Lloyd to Epstein?
  - hanniabu 7y ago
    Maybe he connect Epstein with high end clients, some sort of finder fee. Or it could possible be a finder fee for women if you want to make those allegations.
  - michaelt 7y ago
    If you donate $5,000 to a university they will invite you to one or two events a year where they show you the kind of research donations have been supporting, some students who received bursaries say how it let them buy books and focus on their studies, and the head of the university gives a speech about their vision for the future of the school. Important-sounding academics and administrators will circulate and talk to you as a peer. Or, from a more cynical point of view, they make you feel important/distinguished/part of their community, in hopes of soliciting further donations in the future. I assume, if you donate $50,000,000 they knock that up several notches.

mlyle 7y ago

> 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 matter. Instead we should look at the facts for each case (visited Epstein's island where bad things had happened, and accepted money from Epstein in an unusual way).

sequoia 7y ago
> I think this is a dangerous way to look at things That's a fair point. I should have said "while a small technical oversight such as stating 'he went for lunch' as a fact (absent proof) would normally not be worth highlighting, the facts of this case make me feel that even such small technical oversights should be avoided or highlighted when they occur." By "the facts of this case" I mean the facts that 1) Epstein appears to have been guilty of trafficking many underage girls and directing them to have sex with friends or business partners of his and 2) this guy who had other inappropriate/unethical dealings with Epstein went to his island, for a few hours. Basically I'm saying they should just say "This friend of Epstein made a 3 hour visit to him on pedophile island" which are the only known facts. Not saying he did anything, but neither should the report claim he didn't unless they have evidence. Just stick to the facts.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
samstave 7y ago
>I think this is a dangerous way to look at things No it is not. Its sound. >Whatever other things happened with other people doesn't really matter. YES. They Do! The guy was trafficking kids for sex and blackmail, and was frequently ferrying high profile people to his island which to every account was used for sex acts with minors. The witnesses are many. His ties to Mossad, high powered elites in royal and political circles globally are well documented, his personal fixer/trafficker, Maxwell, is still MIA, assumed to be protected by those involved in this - with close ties to people in the UN and in compromising situations such as the Silsbey event in Haiti etc... It stinks to high heaven and it is foolish to deny the literal mountains of evidence. It just came out that Comey's daughter was responsible for the deleted tapes from the prison FFS... This case is unbelievably bad.

SkyMarshal 7y ago

To be honest it's not even clear that "for a few hours" is fact. It doesn't appear to be footnoted or sourced in the report. Visiting a private island in the Caribbean from your home base in Boston is a full day affair. Total one-way travel time from MIT campus to that island is about half a day. Seems at least as likely to have been an overnight trip.

droithomme 7y ago
page 12: > 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 in his academic publications. While Professor Lloyd clearly valued Epstein as a source of potential funding, he also told us he believed that, by continuing to engage with Epstein post-conviction, he could be part of Epstein’s rehabilitation. The way it's phrased it isn't clear if this was a one time visit or multiple times. "He visited the island" is an ambiguous statement as regards one time or many.
freepor 7y ago
It’s a 3 hour direct flight which can be a 3 hour trip in a private jet. But I don’t think you get to claim it was for lunch unless you can prove it. Why would someone go so far for lunch?
- celticmusic 7y ago
  For the same reason you would show up at Bill Gates house for lunch if you were invited.
  - freepor 7y ago
    Yah, worlds greatest philanthropist and infamous child rapist are not quite equivalent...
    - michaelt 7y ago