# Profoundd archive — Epstein Files # Bates number: EFTA01024623 # Title: From: Lawrence Krauss # Dataset: 9 # Pages: 7 # Images: 7 detected # Tags: epstein, doj, dataset-9, image-described # Source PDF: https://profoundd.com/epstein-docs/EFTA01024623/download # Doc viewer: https://profoundd.com/epstein-docs/EFTA01024623 # # Text below is what Profoundd has extracted from the source PDF. # 'ocr-enriched' tag means OCR was applied to scan-only pages. # Image descriptions are AI-generated factual captions (llava:13b). #---------------------------------------------------------------------- === SUMMARY === From: Lawrence Krauss To: "Jeffrey E." , nancy dahl Subject: Fwd: hi.. hope all is well Date: Mon, 03 Sep 2018 05:11:42 +0000 more sage advice.. except for suing the media perhaps.. Lawrence M. Krauss Professor School of Earth & Space Exploration and Physics Department Arizona State University, P.O. Box 871404, Tempe, AZ 85287.1404 Research Office:i Assistant (Jessica): Begin forwarded message: From: Alison B Subject: Re: hi.. hope all is well Date: Septe === EXTRACTED TEXT === From: Lawrence Krauss To: "Jeffrey E." , nancy dahl Subject: Fwd: hi.. hope all is well Date: Mon, 03 Sep 2018 05:11:42 +0000 more sage advice.. except for suing the media perhaps.. Lawrence M. Krauss Professor School of Earth & Space Exploration and Physics Department Arizona State University, P.O. Box 871404, Tempe, AZ 85287.1404 Research Office:i Assistant (Jessica): Begin forwarded message: From: Alison B Subject: Re: hi.. hope all is well Date: September 2, 2018 at 9:30:02 PM PDT To: Lawrence Krauss wrote: Hi Alison: Just touching base, as you may know ASU determined I did touch the woman in Australia and therefore violated ASU policy, in spite of the fact that even the woman in question did not say it was anything intentional.. More below (extracted from a letter to a colleague about this). Anyway, ASU in their wisdom sent a copy of the report to Mel Thomson, who, within hours distributed it to the press, even though ASU had led me to believe that at this stage things were still confidential. So, while I am still appealing ASU's decisions, I am thinking about Ms. Thomson, and have thought that since there are at least 5 provable public lies she has told about me and the incident (independent of the actual touching), whether I might sue her for defamation in Australia, and wanted to get your opinion. Here are some details, extracted from that other email: "ASU eventually did talk to the woman in question, who was undoubtedly pressured by Ms. Thomson to talk to them. But, there is no evidence whatsoever that the alleged touching was intentional. I have now seen the photo in question and it is obvious I was not ready for a selfie when this woman backed up into me. ( am sending it confidentially to you Alison.. I did not send it to my colleague) I am not smiling at all and was moving in reaction to her presence. I have taken perhaps 10,000 selfies with members of the public and there is not a single one in which I am not smiling, for example (or a single other one in which there is a complaint). Moreover, the woman in question, who refused to be part of the original complaint and also refused to speak to the media, and insisted on remaining anonymous when she finally spoke to ASU, said three things: (1) it was a 'clumsy interaction' —consistent with my claim of accidental touching, (2) she did not feel victimized, (3) she did not want a complaint filed and asked her friend not to file a complaint, a request her friend ignored. It is also worth pointing out that after making their own investigation of the same incident, and speaking to the complainant and others, Australian National University dismissed the claim and said there was no substantiated violation of their policy. As far asMelanie is concerned', she has lied 5 separate times either in her official complaint to ASU, her complaint to Australian National University, and to the press and public. These include: (I) the claim that the woman in question complained to the Organizers.. As the Organizers testified, they did not received a single complaint from anyone either during or after the event. Rather the reaction to my lecture and attendance at the meeting was universally positive. (2) the public claim that the organization was never having me back for any events. Again false. Six months later I was invited back to Melbourne to speak and the organization helped coordinate my event. (3) the claim made to ANU that there was another photograph showing me explicitly touching the woman's breast. After repeated requests Ms. Thomson could not produce such a photo. EFTA01024627 (4) the claim was made, in the report made by Ms. Thomson attached to her original complaint, that the woman I allegedly touched did not know me and came up asking for a selfie. As the woman herself later described it to ASU, she had met me on multiple occasions in the past and had mutual friends with me. This was someone quite familiar with me who leaned into me for a selfie, not a stranger as claimed. (5) Finally, this week Ms. Thomson said on a public broadcast that not only did her friend not want her to make a complaint but that she herself did not think the episode worthy of a complaint, but it was only six months later, in April, when she heard me speaking on a panel about the March for Science, and disliked some of my comments, that she decided I needed to be punished for my views and initiated a complaint. This not only directly contradicts her earlier statements about complaining at the time and about the alleged severity of the offense as she interpreted it at the time, but also made clear her bias and reasons for making the complaint. So, in short, I must have accidentally touched a woman's breast at a private atheist event in Australia when she leaned back into me as I was adjusting to allow her to take a selfie, and she and I, who knew each other, resolved this between ourselves, presumably with a short apology and/or discussion (I wish I had some recollection of this event, which I would have had it been something serious or severe) , and another woman (Melanie) decided, for many reasons known only to her, eventually to try and seek publicity by turning it into something it wasn't.... In this regard, I cannot help but include one more thing, which I hope will demonstrate the ridiculous bias of the investigation process. Ms Thomson was not content to make the allegation about breast touching to ASU, so she later made another claim, that I had `photobombed' a picture of her and another attendee at the event the next day, after she had publicly kissed her friend, leaving a big lipstick mark on her cheek, after which she claimed I said "girl on girl' action. She actually had the temerity to send to ASU the photograph in question, which I append below! And moreover, ASU spoke to her friend, who not only said that she did not recall me saying a word at the time, but only Ms. Thomson, on the right, telling her right after the photograph that she "hated that man". When I saw this, I was heartened because I thought for certain that the investigators would realize how Melanie was willing to make false claims against me (after all, this is as much an example of photobombing as the other photograph was of groping), and also how the fact that I was clearly invited to do a selfie with these people the day after the alleged infraction would suggest that there was no concern about me at the time, and finally that this woman had malicious intent in her efforts to impugn my reputation. But to my immense surprise, when I got the final investigator report I discovered that they ruled that this too was a violation of University policy and represented some kind of harassment by me. " So, ALison, do you think I have a case for defamation because of the 5 public lies about me, independent of the actual breast touching questions? Lawrence p.s. here is the breast photo.. Lawrence M. Krauss Professor School of Earth & Space Exploration and Physics Department Arizona State On' ' x 871404, Tempe, AZ 85287-1404 Research Office: r I Assistant (Jessica): EFTA01024628 iii EFTA01024629 === IMAGE DESCRIPTIONS === [Image 1] The image shows a text document with a message written in English. The document appears to be a letter or a message with a header that reads "Dear [Name]," followed by a body of text. The text mentions a legal matter and refers to a specific individual named "Lawrence." The document includes a date at the top, which is August 19, 2010. The text is written in a formal tone and discusses legal matte [Image 2] The image shows a digital document, which appears to be an email. The email contains text, and there are visible sections of the document with redacted text, indicated by asterisks. The visible text includes a salutation, a list of points or instructions, and a closing. The document is addressed to an individual named "Matthew," and the sender's name is redacted. The email seems to be discussing a [Image 3] The image shows a scanned document, which appears to be a letter or an email. The text is written in English and includes various paragraphs with different topics. There are visible names, such as "Lawrence M. Stone," and a date "Aug 15, 2011." The document mentions a company or organization named "ANZ," and there are references to "Western Australia," "ANZ," and "ANZ Banking Group." The text disc [Image 4] The image shows a digital document, which appears to be an email. The sender's name is redacted, and the recipient's name is also redacted. The email is dated September 20, 2010, and it is addressed to a person whose name is redacted. The subject line of the email is redacted. The body of the email contains a message that is redacted. The email includes a signature at the bottom, which is redacted [Image 5] The image is a photograph of a printed document, which appears to be a letter or an email. The text is written in English and discusses a personal matter involving a woman named "Mrs. Thorpe." The document mentions a complaint about a photograph taken at an event, and it refers to a conversation with a woman who is described as being "very upset." The text also mentions a "Mrs. Thorpe" and a "Mrs. [Image 6] The image shows a text message with a lengthy paragraph of text. The content of the text is not clear due to the resolution and angle of the photograph. The text appears to be a message or a note, but the specific details are not legible. The message is displayed on a screen, which could be a phone or a computer monitor. The text is in English, and there are no visible logos, names, or other ident