This. Significant portions of the Epstein files are random noise. Though even for a popularish author it'd be strange to be in enough 1990-2018 news snippets to reach that many EF hits. In any case "is in the Epstein files" should in general be replaced with "is in the Epstein files, including this email to/from them I found"

▲

dghlsakjg a day ago | parent [-]

The most interesting section from the large paragraph on Wikipedia: “One of the documents is an image of an email from Ariely to Epstein, in which he requests the name and email of a "redhead" that Epstein had previously introduced to him”

▲

bluGill a day ago | parent [-]

That still doesn't mean anything. Sure we know Epstein did evil, but not everything he did was evil. One should assume at least a few people he interacted with had no reason to suspect his evil actions.

▲

jasonfarnon a day ago | parent | next [-]

I guess that's why the same passage says Ariely maintained the relationship long after the Epstein's pedophile convictions. Not definitive either, but pretty suggestive.

▲

dghlsakjg a day ago | parent | prev [-]

Go read the article instead of nitpicking people doing the citations for you.

If you ask a known pedophile for funding and introductions while accepting favors, you can rightly be accused of bad judgment - at best.

▲

bluGill a day ago | parent [-]

Go read it yourself. There isn't enough information to draw concussions. Everything is consistent with contact with a major funder who you can't cut off just because of evil in a part of life you knew nothing about.

You can read the article with a bias and ignore his counter claims. However that is drawing a conclusion not warranted.

Now perhaps someone has read the letters and seen other evidence and can draw conclusions. However at this point I can't say who knew what.

Both people are of course evil, but they may or may not have an evil in common.

▲

iammjm a day ago | parent [-]

Asking THE sex trafficker pimp extraordinaire about the contact data of a “redhead”… I guess you CAN read this whole interaction as benevolent if you squint hard enough to the point that the nature of this guy’s transactions with people becomes invisible

	▲	bluGill 19 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I have a policy of "innocent until proven guilty". (even proven guilty doesn't mean guilty, but by that time so much evidence has been examined that odds are high enough to finally say guilty). All too often somebody pushes only evidence that supports their bias without full care for the full truth. I agree it looks pretty bad, but I have not seen all the evidence and thus I must hold out the possibility he is innocent until someone does take the time to examine it all. That doesn't mean I think he is innocent, just that I'm carefully withholding judgement because I know I do not have all the facts. It also doesn't mean I'm against investigation of the facts - I just want the investigation done properly, and all discussions like this do not contribute to a proper investigation.