`  Response from Turville Re: Epstein article   Hello, thank you for your posts and for adjusting the mug shot to the more appropriate location. I am not as claimed, a pr crony for Jeffrey Epstein. I do though come from a science journalist background, had heard of the Program for Evolutionary Dynamics at Harvard, and when I came across this article I was quite taken by the lob-sided presentation of this piece. It struck me immediately as slanderous vs. having a neutral point of view. MONEY LAUNDERING: the link that was added to back this, does not connect through. That is extremely problematic given that this is in the lead of the piece and libel if not properly sourced. I googled money laundering and Jeffrey Epstein and found the article url that mentions it but this is what I found, and I quote: ``Yet a source tells The Daily Beast that Epstein’s legal troubles may not be over. IT IS POSSIBLE THAT, as an outgrowth of the 2007 Florida investigation, federal investigators are now looking into allegations of money laundering and other financial misdeeds. Villafana notes at the end of her letter to Lefkowitz: “You accuse me of broadening the scope of the investigation without any foundation for doing so by adding charges of money laundering and violations of a money transmitting business to the investigation. Again, I consulted with the Justice Department’s Money Laundering Section about my analysis...the duty officer agreed with my analysis.”   Something being ``possible`` in the press is not the same as something that actually ``is`` as claimed in the lead of the article. So, so far the lead is misleading and false. Unless you can find an article that confirms that he IS under investigation for money laundering, I think it should be removed. PROGRAM for EVOLUTIONARY DYNAMICS: this was entirely established from Jeffrey Epstein's $30 million, as was the research that was the first to mathematically quantify the in vivo kinetics of human cancer cells. That was a major achievement in the filed of cancer and I think it should be allowed back into the article.   Thank you for your thoughts. PS. I didn't use this talk page because I simply overlooked it and so went to your individual talk pages instead. I agree that this is a better forum, so long as it is a venue that editors look at. my best, 50.74.171.70 (talk) `