Ian

I can understand the desire to defend a friend. It’s likely evolved from our tribal days where we needed close bonds and to trust our neighbours.

However, sometimes, when a friend messes up, we need to either call them on it or just step back and wait for the facts to clear up on their own.

There’s nothing honourable about defending a sex offender.

Lawrence Krauss has been trying to better elucidate his position through repeated statements. Here’s what he’s had to say since my first post on this issue. First an update at Skepchick:

I have read on the web claims of orgies on Jeffrey’s island during scientific meetings that I organized.. Orgies in which I was supposed to have been involved. This kind of nonsense has made me very skeptical of media reports on Jeffrey’s activities. Moreover, I am naturally skeptical by nature, and have looked in to a number of these supposed events, but am not going to share any details with you because I don’t think these are issues that are relevant to Jeffrey’s support of science, my scientific credentials etc.. or that I should discuss in public in any case… I will say however, that as a skeptic you might ask yourself whether there might be any motivation to potentially sue a billionaire with whom you may have been involved in one way or another… someone who might rather settle out of court for a large fee rather than have to deal with publicity, sleazy journalists etc? no, that never happens does it? Not very skeptical of you to wonder I think..

Then this was posted here and at Skepchick:

I will add one remark here, as most people have not read my full set of comments, posted after the post appeared.. I am myself rather disappointed by the lack of skepticality of this community. As I said, I have read numerous reports of orgies on Jeffrey’s island involving me and other scientists during our meetings.. Orgies that never happened. I am VERY skeptical of other claims on his behavior. I am defending Jeffrey for 2 reasons: (1) Based on my knowledge and experience I am skeptical of the claims in the media and of those who have settled claims for money… namely I don’t believe the published details just like I tend to be skeptical of many published details on the internet.. I don’t believe Jeffrey did what has been claimed, and unless I see hard evidence, I will trust my own judgement here, and (2) Jeffrey went to prison, and I happen to believe that having served time, even those who questioned his behavior should be willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, again until proved otherwise, that he is working hard to live a good life and do good things. I for one am disgusted that people eat up the salacious nonsense the read on the web and then jump to conclusions about things and people they do not know.. I do not jump to condemn people, especially when it concerns their sexual preferences. I DO NOT CONDONE sex with young girls, or young boys for that matter.. because there are real victims there.. Until I know all the facts however, I do not jump to conclusions, and I am sorry, having seen the media frenzy around Jeffrey, and having seen the shoddy behavior of those who have attacked him, I remain skeptical, and I support a man whose character I believe I know.. If you want to condemn me for that, so be it.

And his final (for now?) comment at Skepchick:

I condemn the acts that have been described in the media, but I don’t believe Jeffrey did them, and I have personally had no compelling evidence to the contrary, and lots of reason to be suspicious of what I have read. Moreover, for those who are confused, there was no trial, no evidence presented at a trial, no jury decision. So I am not pitting myself against a court of law. There was a plea bargain, for a host of reasons that people can speculate about. One could also speculate that the prosecution would not have considered a plea bargain had they had a compelling case, but I am not making that assumption. Now, am I wrong to trust someone I believe I can trust when we have talked at length about this in detail? Perhaps. But I have tried to make an assessment based on my knowledge of the events, the reports, and the man. Since I don’t believe there was rape, child-molestation, or moving minors from one country to another for sexual purposes, I cannot in all good conscience condemn my friend, even if it leads to condemnation of me. I may be wrong or deluded in my conclusions, but I am acting honorably, as I see it, based upon them.

Moreover, as I have tried to say repeatedly, even if you choose to disagree with me, and for some reason think you have better evidence that these events happened than I do, the fact is that Jeffrey went to prison, and I know for a fact came out of prison a more thoughtful responsible man who was intent on doing good. I would hope people would not be so quick to assume that this is not possible, and that if any of you were in this situation that you would hope that people would be willing to allow for this possibility.

It has been a difficult decision to stand by what I believe are the facts of the matter in spite of attacks from people I would like the respect of, but that is the way it is. As some of you know, I just wrote a book about Richard Feynman, and as I thought about the derision on the web, I remember his statement, What do you care what other people think? I think he would have done the same thing I have done if he assessed the situation as I have.

So his basic points are:

1. Jeffrey Epstein is a good guy.
2. The media has, in the past, sought to soil the reputation of the rich and famous.
3. Epstein was not tried by a jury but entered a plea bargain.
4. Plea bargains are often taken as a way out, or offered when the prosecution lacks evidence.
5. Epstein said the girls were over 19 to Krauss.
6. We should be skeptical of the media.
7. Richard Feynman would have done the same.

Point 1 is an opinion and 5 is an anecdote, which both fail the “skepticism” test that Krauss is arguing we apply.

The facts of the case disagree with number 5, including Epstein’s own journal. Perhaps it’s all fabrications by a corrupt media, but at some point the conspiracy breaks down and, as good skeptics, we should accept Occam’s Razor.

Points 2 and 4 are given without evidence or justification. Number 7 is an appeal to authority and is quite disappointing to see considering Feynman’s no longer with us to defend himself. We may as well say that Jesus would have done the same.

So the only point I can concede (although he potentially made more) is that he did enter a plea bargain… although when statements like this come out of it: “Mr. Epstein accepted responsibility for the charges relating to conduct that occurred several years ago,” I think we’re forced to accept the facts. He either lied in his bargain (which is in a court of law, so I believe would count as perjury although IANAL) or he’s lying now, but do you really want to defend someone who lies in court?

Now, I’m not asking for Krauss to attack or condemn Epstein; I just think that sometimes when the facts are unclear the best position to take is silence. Each comment made further digs that hole.