3 ms·

> Virginia Giuffre said that she had sex with Minsky when she was 17 and he was 73. I think no matter how you look at it (even if she was technically above the

by blagie 16d ago

> Virginia Giuffre said that she had sex with Minsky when she was 17 and he was 73. I think no matter how you look at it (even if she was technically above the age of consent in the jurisdiction of Epstein's island), it is still wrong and he absolutely should have known that. This statement is factually false. She said she was asked to offer herself for sex to Minsky. People inferred from this that sex happened, but Virginia did not say this. Read the full file. Accounts from Minsky's wife say that Minsky declined. Accounts from Minsky's friends say he was very monogamous. No one close to the situation supports an account of Minsky having sex with Virginia Giuffre. The natural next step should not have been to indict Minsky's reputation, but to ask Virginia Giuffre the natural follow-up: How did Minsky react when you made the offer?

beedeebeedee 14d ago
In the deposition in Giuffre v Maxwell, she says she was directed by Maxwell to have sex with Prince Andrew, Jean Luc Brunel, Bill Richardson, Marvin Minsky and others. In those remarks, she is usually asked if she was sent or directed, presumably because they were concerned with Maxwell's involvement, and less concerned with the actual acts. > Accounts from Minsky's wife say that Minsky declined. That statement is factually false, unless you have a source that is not publicly available. The only accounts I can find is that his widow said it couldn't have happened because she said she was always with him, not that he declined.
- blagie 14d ago
  Everything you wrote is materially correct. Given that you have this background, can you please explain how this: > Virginia Giuffre said that she had sex with Minsky when she was 17 and he was 73. Was not a lie? Also: Yes, I do have sources which are not publicly available, but the difference between "declined" versus "it couldn't have happened because she said she was always with him" is within the spectrum of ambiguity of real-world human speech and memory. It is not materially different. The material point is there are multiple witnesses (at least the widow, in public sources) that say he did not have sex. If you want proof of MIT folks covering up: a) Read the MIT Transparency Report b) Look at photos on archive.org from people who went to Epstein island and events whom MIT did not reveal. All this was public at the time. Compare. But MIT also has travel records, so most of the people in the Epstein files, MIT knew about and chose to omit.
  - beedeebeedee 14d ago
    > It is not materially different. It is materially different. Either it did not happen as the widow claimed, or it did and it was declined. I will back down from my claim that Minsky did have sex with Virginia Giuffree. In the deposition in the case against Maxwell, the questions were if Maxwell directed her to have sex with Prince Andrew, Jean Luc Brunel, Bill Richardson, Marvin Minsky and others. She was not asked if she actually followed through. If you have non-public information, then feel free to share, otherwise there is nothing left to say.
    - blagie 13d ago
      > I will back down from my claim that Minsky did have sex with Virginia Giuffree Thank you for backing down. An apology would be warranted. > It is materially different. Either it did not happen as the widow claimed, or it did and it was declined. The material fact was that sex did not happen, regardless of whether the argument was that people saw Minsky decline or the argument was that the widow was with him the whole time and saw it did not happen. The two are not contradictory. > If you have non-public information, then feel free to share, otherwise there is nothing left to say. I do. I never met Minsky, which was odd given we revolve in similar circles. I did and still do know a lot of people who do know Minsky, whom I trust. The accounts -- which for me are second-hand and for you are now third-hand, were that the widow wasn't the only witness that sex did not happen, and that people who know Minsky well found the concept of him cheating on his wife inconceivable. That's just not his personality. That's good enough for me to conclude that Minsky did not have sex with Virginia. It's not hard proof, but it seems extremely unlikely. However, even if it did seem plausible (let's omit the insider information from a stranger on the internet), I would STILL not indict Minsky without clear evidence. Treating people as guilty without proof is kind of evil, in my opinion. It's two kind of evil: - It's reprehensible when innocent people are treated as guilty. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone's_ratio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone's_ratio - It makes smear campaigns work. The reason corporations, the CIA, and other organizations are able to run character assassination on activists and whistleblowers is precisely people like you, willing to run with allegations. As a footnote: If you actually cared about pedophiles, corruption, and sex, why haven't you followed up on the obvious? The logical question -- if you bothered with logical inference over outrage -- would be why there were multiple, non-public witnesses who weren't mentioned in the MIT Transparency Report. Epstein got around a lot in MIT circles.

by blagie 16d ago

beedeebeedee 14d ago

In the deposition in Giuffre v Maxwell, she says she was directed by Maxwell to have sex with Prince Andrew, Jean Luc Brunel, Bill Richardson, Marvin Minsky and others. In those remarks, she is usually asked if she was sent or directed, presumably because they were concerned with Maxwell's involvement, and less concerned with the actual acts. > Accounts from Minsky's wife say that Minsky declined. That statement is factually false, unless you have a source that is not publicly available. The only accounts I can find is that his widow said it couldn't have happened because she said she was always with him, not that he declined.

blagie 14d ago
Everything you wrote is materially correct. Given that you have this background, can you please explain how this: > Virginia Giuffre said that she had sex with Minsky when she was 17 and he was 73. Was not a lie? Also: Yes, I do have sources which are not publicly available, but the difference between "declined" versus "it couldn't have happened because she said she was always with him" is within the spectrum of ambiguity of real-world human speech and memory. It is not materially different. The material point is there are multiple witnesses (at least the widow, in public sources) that say he did not have sex. If you want proof of MIT folks covering up: a) Read the MIT Transparency Report b) Look at photos on archive.org from people who went to Epstein island and events whom MIT did not reveal. All this was public at the time. Compare. But MIT also has travel records, so most of the people in the Epstein files, MIT knew about and chose to omit.
- beedeebeedee 14d ago
  > It is not materially different. It is materially different. Either it did not happen as the widow claimed, or it did and it was declined. I will back down from my claim that Minsky did have sex with Virginia Giuffree. In the deposition in the case against Maxwell, the questions were if Maxwell directed her to have sex with Prince Andrew, Jean Luc Brunel, Bill Richardson, Marvin Minsky and others. She was not asked if she actually followed through. If you have non-public information, then feel free to share, otherwise there is nothing left to say.
  - blagie 13d ago
    > I will back down from my claim that Minsky did have sex with Virginia Giuffree Thank you for backing down. An apology would be warranted. > It is materially different. Either it did not happen as the widow claimed, or it did and it was declined. The material fact was that sex did not happen, regardless of whether the argument was that people saw Minsky decline or the argument was that the widow was with him the whole time and saw it did not happen. The two are not contradictory. > If you have non-public information, then feel free to share, otherwise there is nothing left to say. I do. I never met Minsky, which was odd given we revolve in similar circles. I did and still do know a lot of people who do know Minsky, whom I trust. The accounts -- which for me are second-hand and for you are now third-hand, were that the widow wasn't the only witness that sex did not happen, and that people who know Minsky well found the concept of him cheating on his wife inconceivable. That's just not his personality. That's good enough for me to conclude that Minsky did not have sex with Virginia. It's not hard proof, but it seems extremely unlikely. However, even if it did seem plausible (let's omit the insider information from a stranger on the internet), I would STILL not indict Minsky without clear evidence. Treating people as guilty without proof is kind of evil, in my opinion. It's two kind of evil: - It's reprehensible when innocent people are treated as guilty. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone's_ratio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone's_ratio - It makes smear campaigns work. The reason corporations, the CIA, and other organizations are able to run character assassination on activists and whistleblowers is precisely people like you, willing to run with allegations. As a footnote: If you actually cared about pedophiles, corruption, and sex, why haven't you followed up on the obvious? The logical question -- if you bothered with logical inference over outrage -- would be why there were multiple, non-public witnesses who weren't mentioned in the MIT Transparency Report. Epstein got around a lot in MIT circles.