‘The most plausible scenario is that she presented herself to him as entirely willing’: MIT scientist appears to DEFEND Jeffrey Epstein in emails leaked by a graduate
- MIT’s Richard Stallman appeared to defend Jeffrey Epstein’s actions in leaked emails
- He claimed that victims being ‘entirely willing’ was the ‘most plausible scenario’
- The emails were leaked by a female engineering graduate online
- Further dives into his websites appeared to show him defending pedophilia
An MIT scientist appeared to defend Jeffrey Epstein and stated that his victims being ‘entirely willing’ was the ‘most plausible scenario’ in leaked emails revealed by a graduate.
Richard Stallman, a computer scientist considered to be one of the most influential in his field, has been quizzed over his stance on the now-deceased financier’s actions.
Engineering alumna Selam Jie Gano shared a blog post that called for the immediate removal of Stallman who is a visiting scientist at the school.
She revealed correspondence that appeared to show his belief that there was no wrongdoing by Epstein nor another alleged attacker Marvin Minsky, who worked at MIT.
The claims came amid revelations about MIT receiving money, alleged to be up to millions of dollars, from the convicted sex offender.
MIT visiting scientist Richard Stallman (right) appeared to defend the actions of Jeffrey Epstein (left) in leaked emails from an engineering graduate
Stallman (above) said victims must being ‘entirely willing’ was the ‘most plausible scenario’
Minksy, who died in 2016, founded MIT’s Artificial Intelligence lab and has been accused of assaulting Virginia Giuffre. She claimed to have been trafficked to several wealthy men in a list that included him.
In the emails, Stallman elaborated that Giuffre’s ‘willingness’ to commit the sex acts was ‘the most plausible scenario’ to why it happened.
He said: ‘We can imagine many scenarios, but the most plausible scenario is that she presented herself to him as entirely willing.
‘Assuming she was being coerced by Epstein, he would have had every reason to tell her to conceal that from most of his associates.’
He later reportedly added: ‘It is morally absurd to define “rape” in a way that depends on minor details such as which country it was in or whether the victim was 18 years old or 17.’
Stallman has allegedly written dozens of posts on his personal website in favor of legalizing pedophilia and child pornography, in posts that go back as far as 15 years, The Daily Beast reported.
On his personal site, stallman.org, he is claimed to have written in favor of limiting laptop searches, particularly at the U.S. border.
Talking about ‘child pornography’ he allegedly wrote: ‘It might be an image of a sexually mature teenager that any normal adult would find attractive. What’s heinous about having such a photo?’
Stallman allegedly commented on the news of Epstein on his personal site, writing: ‘I disagree with some of what the article says about Epstein.
‘Epstein is not, apparently, a pedophile, since the people he raped seem to have all been postpuberal.’
Stallman added that he preferred to refer to Epstein a ‘serial rapist.’
In another allegedly post, he allegedly wrote: ‘I think that everyone age 14 or above ought to take part in sex, though not indiscriminately. (Some people are ready earlier.)’
Stallman suggested Virginia Giuffre, Epstein’s ‘sex slave’, must have been willing to have been used as a prostitute. The scientist has said some other troubling things online about the age of consent
The developments come amid MIT apologizing last month for taking $800,000 from Epstein over the last 20 years and vowing to donate that amount to a charity for sexual violence victims.
However, it has now been claimed that the university took more money than it originally admitted.
MIT’s Media Lab director Joi Ito has resigned already after reports claimed he had accepted $1.7million in donations from Epstein.
Leaked emails suggested Ito had directly asked Epstein for $100,000 in one email.
DailyMail.com reached out to Stallman for comment but did not immediately hear back.
Source: Read Full Article