Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

If a bunch of underage girls were unexpectedly present, and obviously had nothing to contribute regarding artificial intelligence, then 2002 Minsky can only conclude Epstein (as the organizer) welcomed the underage girls, or else Epstein (as the organizer) would have thrown them out. It's on an island, it's not a small town music concert where girls can jump the fence to skip entrance fees... they would literally have to swim to the island in order to ... attend an AI conference? Everybody present must have known what the girls were for.

How do you explain his experiencing and concluding this and repeat by asking Epstein for another conference?




> then 2002 Minsky can only conclude Epstein (as the organizer) welcomed the underage girls, or else Epstein (as the organizer) would have thrown them out. It's on an island, it's not a small town music concert where girls can jump the fence to skip entrance fees...

Aside, It's a tangent because what happened to the victim was crap regardless of their age... But, the conference referred to was in April 2002, and the victim was born in August 1983, so they were of age at that time. (I didn't comment on the underage thing earlier because I think it's a distraction to point out that it also looked like they were technically of-age-- it's always possible that there were other earlier interactions, but that's pure speculation and I don't see why anyone should assume such a thing unless someone makes some kind of accusation of it)


>...the victim was born in August 1983, so they were of age at that time

How do you go from "the victim", to "they were of age"?

You are replying to a comment that does not name a specific victim, the comment questions Minsky's choice to have his AI conferences repeatedly held on an island with groups of unsupervised underage girls, with pictures of topless underage girls scattered around the compound:

https://abcnews.go.com/US/contractor-jeffrey-epstein-quit-co...

This contractor worked there for 6 years starting from 1999 which means its representative of 2002

Also reread carefully what I wrote in my other comments, I never claimed it was Giuffre who probably had sex with Minsky, the deposition can contain testimony from other witnesses as well.


The public discussion about Minsky stems directly from a particular deposition that mentions him, without it I don't believe there would be any more discussion of Minksky+JE than there is of, say, Hawking+JE. This same deposition is what is discussed in the article Benford commented on.

I acknowledged the possibility that there were separate incidents at other times from what Benford mentioned, as well ("it's always possible that there were other earlier interactions, but that's pure speculation and I don't see why anyone should assume such a thing unless someone makes some kind of accusation of it")-- but was pointing out that if it was a was assumed up thread then she would have been of age at the time. From the description in her depo, she would have been a victim regardless of her age.

I've preferred to avoid using her name gratitiously because having idiotic internet discussions showing up in searches forever utterly sucks-- it can feel violating, with the public assuming ownership of your identity against your will.

I was of the impression that it was absolutely clear what depositions we were talking about-- I don't see how you could think it was anything else. Unless I missed something, the only other mention of Minsky in the depositions was a pilot that listed him as a person that was brought to/from the island.


Edit: according to The Verge (obviously citing the same testimony discussed in another comment) is from Giuffre, and a witness corroborates the account. That would have been in 2001, when Giuffre was 2001, so before the conference, validating my questioning

1) how Greg Benford knows positively that Giuffre is the same girl he saw at the event

2) how Greg Benford can exclude any other events: i.e. Giuffre and Minsky possibly having had sex before the 2002 conference.

https://www.theverge.com/2019/8/9/20798900/marvin-minsky-jef...

This assumes TheVerge correctly interprets the incomplete unsealed records.


Why are you assuming any of the guests knew they were underage as opposed to just young?

Why are you assuming that the guests in general knew they were there there for any other reason than the waitstaff at hooters is there for? -- To host the event and be attractive.

If things were as you seem to imagine them, why are the victims who have come forward not even alleging that?


>If things were as you seem to imagine them, why are the victims who have come forward not even alleging that?

Why are they not alleging what ?


They aren't alleging anything accused here.

One of epstein's victims said that they were directed to offer Minsky sex ( https://twitter.com/_cryptome_/status/1159946492871938048 ... and yes, I did indeed look before sharing the link to Benford's comment, did you look before spreading defamatory conjecture? ). That's it, wrt Minsky. They didn't say they did offer it (though a third party did). They didn't say they had sex with minsky. They didn't say Minsky or other guests knew they were underage, or that minsky knew they were involved in prostitution.

Beyond repeated proximity to epstein there has been no specific allegation of wrongdoing by Minsky that I've seen, but there seems to be plenty in the imaginations of the posters here.

Maybe it turns out those things happened but if they had you would expect them to have been mentioned in the allegations. Maybe they'll be alleged later-- nothing wrong with that. Until they're at least alleged, however, I think it's pretty absurd, and frankly extremely unethical, to just assume them out of absolutely nothing. Hell, if there was a victim saying "Minsky was a really bad man" I would have said nothing about the further speculation, it's only the utterly reckless outright fabrication from peoples perverted imaginations that I thought deserved any rebuke.


Object to the form!

Your original comment read:

>They aren't alleging anything accused here.

>One of epstein's victims said that they were directed to offer minsky sex. That's it. They didn't say they did offer it (though a third party did). They didn't say they had sex. They didn't say Minsky or other guests knew they were underage, or that minsky knew they were involved in prostitution.

>Beyond repeated proximity to epstein there has been no specific allegation of wrongdoing by Minsky that I've seen, but there seems to be plenty in the imaginations of the posters here.

>Maybe it turns out those things happened but if they had you would expect them to have been mentioned in the allegations. Until they're at least alleged, however, I think it's pretty absurd to just assume them.

With your karma, I would expect you not to:

1) retroactively change your upstream comment to reply to my downstream question

2) retroactively link to cryptome where you previously didn't, in response to my questioning if you even invested the effort to dig deeper


what bothers victim(s) beyond compare is not just perpetrators in denial, it's also those who blindly support people in high standing claiming there is no evidence while making no effort whatsoever to locate such evidence.

I would certainly agree if a potential victim of Minskky made a single twitter post claiming she had been "directed to have sex with Minsky" would look like some very misleading innuendo without actual claim of what happened subsequently.

However this is not what happened, you blindly follow Benford's conclusion, who is in turn citing the NYT, who is in turn summarizing an unsealed deposition. An unsealed incomplete deposition I should add, assuming the NYT isn't seeing the same incomplete deposition I am seeing. The choice of wording only appears suspicious because it is ripped out of context.

People like you are triggered by the seemingly suspicious choice of words "told to have sex", correct?

Did you or did you not before reading this comment actually even try to locate such a deposition? I don't know.

Part of me thinks you did, because you seem absolutely certain she only claimed to have been directed to offer Minsky sex. "That's it" in your words. How are you so certain? Do you have access to the complete depositions? If so, please share.

On the other hand, I think you didn't try to locate and read the depositions, because then you would have realized 1) there is nothing suspicious at all about the choice of words and 2) that in all likelihood, probably such a thing did happen.

Let me clarify 1) and 2), but first let me point out that incomplete depositions can be had at cryptome:

https://cryptome.org/2019/08/giuffre-maxwell-275-287.zip

Let me clarify 1) the circulated choice of wording "directed / told to have sex". This is a case between Giuffre vs. Maxwell, so obviously a lot of emphasis is placed on Maxwell's role in the underage prostitution scandal. Testimony needs to establish the facts that Maxwell directed these children as a third party to have sex with clients or targets. If the testimony merely said the child had sex with Minsky, then it would inaccurately leave out the fact that this was under Maxwell's (and indirectly Epstein's) direction. That's it. Your whole weird-phrasing-must-be-a-form-of-insincerity theory rests on the simple fact that her testimony is being ripped out of context (namely court proceedings in a case between Giuffre vs Maxwell.

2) regarding whether it did or did not happen

In the zip, go read pdf pages [144-149], note that those boundaries correspond to jumps in the deposition pages 128->203 and 208->247 so they are incomplete (as nearly all depositions in this dump). If you have the complete depositions, again, please share.

EDIT: a question to anyone who knows: I know the PDF file format allows for previous versions of a document to be contained within the PDF stream, but I am not sure how to extract or revover these, the reason I ask is because the file sizes are far from proportional to page numbers, so if anyone knows how to inspect this let me know.

The file sizes in kiB :

    324 giuffre-275.pdf
    468 giuffre-276.pdf
    204 giuffre-277.pdf
 121256 giuffre-278.pdf
    448 giuffre-279.pdf
   4744 giuffre-280.pdf
   2784 giuffre-281.pdf
    104 giuffre-282.pdf
 190888 giuffre-283.pdf
    508 giuffre-284.pdf
    236 giuffre-285.pdf
    932 giuffre-286.pdf
  10648 giuffre-287.pdf


to late to edit:

"Everybody present must have known what the girls were for."

=>

"Everybody present must have known what the girls were for, including Greg Benford."

Did Greg Benford join more of Epstein's conferences afterwards? How is Greg Benford positive it is the same girl or the same event?


You would only know what the girls are for if there were private rooms.


quoting Greg:

>Typical Crap Journalism from NYT:

>>“In a deposition unsealed this month, a woman testified that, as a teenager, she was told to have sex with Marvin Minsky, a pioneer in artificial intelligence, on Mr. Epstein’s island in the Virgin Islands. Mr. Minsky, who died in 2016 at 88, was a founder of the Media Lab in the mid-1980s.”

>Note, never says what happened. If Marvin had done it, she would say so. I know; I was there. Minsky turned her down. Told me about it. SHE SAW US TALKING AND DIDN'T APPROACH ME.

So irrespective if people were at times in private rooms, or at times in public spaces, people got opportunities to witness the presence of these girls. If she could see him, he could see her.


Ah, the Orient Express argument.


would you mind at least explaining what an "Orient Express argument" is? I don't have time to read fiction novels.




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: