2 ms·

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

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 7d 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 6d 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 6d 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.
    - beedeebeedee 6d ago
      You've made several dubious claims. I'm honest and humble enough to be self-critical and not claim beyond what the deposition said, but that doesn't mean I should be held to a higher standard than you (i.e., if you did what you are demanding of me, you would have already apologized several times). You are claiming there is no difference in the defense by the widow (who said she was always with him), while also claiming that Minsky was offered but declined. Both can only be the true if the offer was discreetly made and that the widow did not notice. The consequence is that it diminishes her as a reliable witness and also raises the question if the offer was discreet, couldn't it have been just as discreetly accepted? If we accept your insider knowledge, it does not improve the circumstances. Not just because friends and colleagues would want to defend someone they are involved with (and indirectly, themselves), but also because the issue here is not just whether he participated, but why didn't he respond appropriately? He was an intellectual leader. Shouldn't we demand our leaders to be moral? In a slightly better world, he would have had the moral clarity of Norm Finkelstein and rejected any association with Epstein once he was offered sex by a 17 year old under his care. It does not appear that Minsky did that, likely because he did not want to risk the grant money and perks of hob-knobbing with the wealthy, or risk reputational harm that Epstein could have inflicted to discredit him. I will share a more ambiguous situation to make it clearer why Minsky's response was problematic. I had a friend at a Zen center when two young women came to visit. One of them was wealthy, and the other was nominally her friend but behaved like a servant. The wealthy one even directed her to have sex with some of the male students and other visitors. It was disturbing to my friend, and at the time, he was not sure how to respond. One could claim that the young woman who was being directed was benefitting from the relationship, and that, after all, she was an adult. However it is clear that it is toxic behavior, even if the young woman's victimhood might seem ambiguous to some. I would claim that the behavior should be rebuked and that morality should not just be about protecting the victims you see but also about rebuking malevolence, because there are so many victims that are not seen. The wealthy young woman was exhibiting her character, and that character would likely persist whether it was in a relationship with her friend, children, or other vulnerable people. She should be plainly told that it is not ok. Although I think some of your assessments are misguided, I think we have common ground about scape-goating (which you were referencing in the second half of your response, but didn't name). If Minsky had rebuked Epstein, or if my friend had rebuked that young woman, it is likely that both would have been scape-goated. Malicious people do not bind themselves to morality so they can lie, instigate and conspire to undermine the reputation of whistle-blowers and other truth speakers. This is a persistent problem of humanity that was exemplified by the stories of Socrates and Jesus, and all of free-thinkers killed during the European medieval period, Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. It is a problem even in much more mundane settings, and will occur whenever a moral person confronts immoral leadership. That is why we have to trumpet morality, lend support to moral behavior and speak out against abuse. I'm not advocating for Minsky to be condemned as a terrible person. I'm just pointing out that he, as an example of wide-spread societal behavior, did not do the right thing.

blagie 7d 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 6d 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 6d 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.
  - beedeebeedee 6d ago
    You've made several dubious claims. I'm honest and humble enough to be self-critical and not claim beyond what the deposition said, but that doesn't mean I should be held to a higher standard than you (i.e., if you did what you are demanding of me, you would have already apologized several times). You are claiming there is no difference in the defense by the widow (who said she was always with him), while also claiming that Minsky was offered but declined. Both can only be the true if the offer was discreetly made and that the widow did not notice. The consequence is that it diminishes her as a reliable witness and also raises the question if the offer was discreet, couldn't it have been just as discreetly accepted? If we accept your insider knowledge, it does not improve the circumstances. Not just because friends and colleagues would want to defend someone they are involved with (and indirectly, themselves), but also because the issue here is not just whether he participated, but why didn't he respond appropriately? He was an intellectual leader. Shouldn't we demand our leaders to be moral? In a slightly better world, he would have had the moral clarity of Norm Finkelstein and rejected any association with Epstein once he was offered sex by a 17 year old under his care. It does not appear that Minsky did that, likely because he did not want to risk the grant money and perks of hob-knobbing with the wealthy, or risk reputational harm that Epstein could have inflicted to discredit him. I will share a more ambiguous situation to make it clearer why Minsky's response was problematic. I had a friend at a Zen center when two young women came to visit. One of them was wealthy, and the other was nominally her friend but behaved like a servant. The wealthy one even directed her to have sex with some of the male students and other visitors. It was disturbing to my friend, and at the time, he was not sure how to respond. One could claim that the young woman who was being directed was benefitting from the relationship, and that, after all, she was an adult. However it is clear that it is toxic behavior, even if the young woman's victimhood might seem ambiguous to some. I would claim that the behavior should be rebuked and that morality should not just be about protecting the victims you see but also about rebuking malevolence, because there are so many victims that are not seen. The wealthy young woman was exhibiting her character, and that character would likely persist whether it was in a relationship with her friend, children, or other vulnerable people. She should be plainly told that it is not ok. Although I think some of your assessments are misguided, I think we have common ground about scape-goating (which you were referencing in the second half of your response, but didn't name). If Minsky had rebuked Epstein, or if my friend had rebuked that young woman, it is likely that both would have been scape-goated. Malicious people do not bind themselves to morality so they can lie, instigate and conspire to undermine the reputation of whistle-blowers and other truth speakers. This is a persistent problem of humanity that was exemplified by the stories of Socrates and Jesus, and all of free-thinkers killed during the European medieval period, Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. It is a problem even in much more mundane settings, and will occur whenever a moral person confronts immoral leadership. That is why we have to trumpet morality, lend support to moral behavior and speak out against abuse. I'm not advocating for Minsky to be condemned as a terrible person. I'm just pointing out that he, as an example of wide-spread societal behavior, did not do the right thing.