You may recall that back in 2008, billionaire Jeffrey Epstein got a sweetheart deal in which he served just 13 months in prison for raping girls as young as 13. Evidence has since emerged to suggest that he created a vast underage sex ring in which he may have also forced girls to have sex with his wealthy friends. Amongst the accused are Alan Dershowitz and Prince Andrew (allegations they deny, obviously).
You may also remember that in 2011, physicist and atheist superstar Lawrence Krauss claimed that his scientific training led him to conclude that Epstein was innocent because Krauss only ever saw Epstein around girls who appeared to be 19 or so.
Remember, this was two years after Epstein had officially accepted the charge that he had paid several underage girls money for sex.
Well, it’s now 2015 and things have never looked more damning for Epstein as his victims fight hard to bring him to justice. But Krauss hasn’t quite given up on him yet, despite a slight downgrade in his supportive rhetoric:
Krauss directs a program on the origins of life — a program that Epstein has supported. Krauss said he would feel cowardly if he turned away from Epstein, given that he doesn’t know anything about the accusations.
It’s great that in the past four years, during which Epstein’s victims have exposed more details of his crimes, Krauss has adjusted his statement from confidently stating that Epstein was 100% innocent of the charges against him to saying he doesn’t know anything about the accusations.
Sure, you could still criticize him for not reading the court documents, or the many articles that have been written about his buddy, but at least he’s being slightly less disgusting than he was before. Slightly?
Ramping up the disgust factor is a biologist and giant piece of shit named Robert Trivers, who took $40,000 from Epstein and then said about the underage girls Epstein raped and allegedly coerced into a prostitution ring, “By the time they’re 14 or 15, they’re like grown women were 60 years ago, so I don’t see these acts as so heinous.”
I assume that Trivers is referring to the dropping age of the onset of puberty (in both girls and boys). In the past 60 years, that age for girls has gone from 13.1 to 10.5. The weird thing is that I think most sensible and compassionate people would agree that it was wrong to pay a 13-year old for sex in 1950, and it’s just as wrong to do it today, even if said 13-year old has been using menstrual pads and training bras for two years or so.
But Trivers clearly isn’t sensible or compassionate: he’s just a rape apologist who is desperately trying to justify his income at the expense of the ruined lives of countless girls who were lured into a pedophile’s high roller prostitution ring.
But on the plus side, at least he makes Lawrence Krauss look positively angelic.