The Prince Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein Controversy 1: 2010-2022 - Page 67

hernameispekka · #**1321** 02-09-2015, 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mermaid1962

Right, and this is why conspiracy theories flourish. I could be wrong in this particular case, but it seems as though the rich and powerful are sometimes at a disadvantage. Not only are they accused of horrendous things, which people tend to believe without knowing them (because the wealthy and powerful are always evil

), but it's assumed that they will use that wealth and power to cover up their misdeeds. The conspiracy-minded thinks is that if there's no evidence, it has been covered up--when in fact, there could be no evidence because there's no misdeed to begin with.

Exactly. And the reason those theories shows up is because exactly that happens time and time again. Those hiding evidence hurt everyone innocent (especially the rich) the same as every girl lying about rape worsens the condition for those who actually was raped.... Arghh, this world.....

GracieGiraffe · #**1322** 02-09-2015, 11:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lady Nimue

No one knows what's going on right now. An investigation could be underway as we speak. Whether or not the media is picking up on it is another matter. The two don't go hand-in-glove. Just saying.

Unfortunately, this is true. The fact that the press did not cover at least Esptein's curious golden parachute is outrageous.

royal rob · #**1323** 02-10-2015, 01:44 AM

Well the rich can afford to fight with a team of lawyers the poor haven't got that help.
I really hope the truth comes out but I really don't think it will happen

Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

Mermaid1962 · #**1324** 02-14-2015, 08:08 PM

Koo Stark weighs in. The Prince Andrew she describes sounds like a nice, normal man.Koo Stark reveals the truth about Prince Andrew: After 32 years' silence, Prince's ex-lover gives account of affair to defend him from 'sex slave' claims | Daily Mail Online

Roslyn · #**1325** 02-14-2015, 09:48 PM

Oh dear! What is it with Andrews ex'es? Nothing they can say has any bearing on what he might or might not have done with respect to Roberts or Epstein. All he has been accused of by Roberts is having sex with him. How on earth can either Sarah or Koo know whether he did or not? They weren't there and, like a lot of people, he has lots of different facets and would not necessarily reveal all of them to his ex-girlfriend or wife. We still don't know whether or not Andrew wrote submissions in support of a lenient sentence for Epstein, though we might find that out.

sndral · #**1326** 02-14-2015, 09:52 PM

Oh that'll help - a defense from an ex-gf he dated 30 years ago who's illegitimate child is his godchild.
The bit about the parrot in the ceiling @ BP, and when she first met Prince Charles was amusing, tho'.

Iluvbertie · #**1327** 02-14-2015, 10:45 PM

I liked the comment from Charles when she got the curtsey wrong at Balmoral - shows that he really does have a caring side.

I have always felt that this is who Andrew should have married. He met Sarah on the rebound but if he had married Koo I suspect they would still be together - don't know why but I do think she has that something to have survived the marrying in issues with the BRF.

Mermaid1962 · #**1328** 02-14-2015, 10:58 PM

Yes, I agree. Koo has been discreet over the years. Even though she was in a "soft-porn" scene, it doesn't mean that she was as wild as Sarah was. She turned down a lot of money that she could have made telling about her time with Andrew. In this article, she doesn't really give away any "royal secrets."

royal rob · #**1329** 02-15-2015, 03:22 AM

I'm I the only one who finds that strange.
She tells us all about their private life all those years ago, things that she should keep between the two of them. None of which has anything to do with what's happening in his life now
I find it very very strange and wonder why she did it ????

Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

Duc_et_Pair · #**1330** 02-15-2015, 03:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sndral

Oh that'll help - a defense from an ex-gf he dated 30 years ago who's illegitimate child is his godchild.

I thought it was telling for the good-natured character of this born prince of the blood royal being a godfather indeed for a child which you describe as "illegitimate".

Quote:

Originally Posted by royal rob

I'm I the only one who finds that strange.
She tells us all about their private life all those years ago, things that she should keep between the two of them. None of which has anything to do with what's happening in his life now
I find it very very strange and wonder why she did it ????

Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

Because she did not recognize her darling in all what has been written and said over him, because she wants to defend the godfather of her child, because the media has been stalking her to say something? Who knows?

In fact Ms Stark said very little but the Mail is milking it out like they have a scoop or something.

royal rob · #**1331** 02-15-2015, 03:46 AM

Her darling ! It was 30 years ago ! I can't help thinking she has been asked to say it. But in saying that IMO I don't think it will change anything

Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

Osipi · #**1332** 02-15-2015, 03:53 AM

I basically saw the article as a long term friend going to bat and standing up for someone she's known for ages and telling the world her perception of what Andrew's character is like. No more. No less. If anything, when things go wrong in one's life, there's a certain comfort just in knowing your friends are in your corner.

It also tells me something else. If a man is able to keep and maintain a long standing friendship with two women he had intimate and close relationships with, it doesn't sound to me like a man that would "use" a woman for his own purposes.

royal rob · #**1333** 02-15-2015, 03:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Osipi

I basically saw the article as a long term friend going to bat and standing up for someone she's known for ages and telling the world her perception of what Andrew's character is like. No more. No less. If anything, when things go wrong in one's life, there's a certain comfort just in knowing your friends are in your corner.

It also tells me something else. If a man is able to keep and maintain a long standing friendship with two women he had intimate and close relationships with, it doesn't sound to me like a man that would "use" a woman for his own purposes.

So it worked on you then
But not me
A prince as a friend would always come in handy

Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

Roslyn · #**1334** 02-15-2015, 03:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by royal rob

I'm I the only one who finds that strange.
She tells us all about their private life all those years ago, things that she should keep between the two of them. None of which has anything to do with what's happening in his life now
I find it very very strange and wonder why she did it ????

I know! After all these years of keeping quiet about their relationship, she suddenly blurts out all this irrelevant stuff we don't need or want to know. Why?

**Zonk** · #**1335** 02-15-2015, 04:13 AM

It makes perfect sense to me.

As she stated in the article [its the Daily Mail so grain of salt]...Andrew can't defend himself, so she is speaking up on his behalf.

It doesn't matter if they dated 30 years, or frankly if he is the godfather of her daughter. I can't even believe that we are still making note on whether or not a child is born within the confines of wedlock in 2014. are we still using the term illegitimate to shame the mother and/or child

The fact remains is that he can't speak up for himself, they have remained friendly and on good terms, and she is sharing with the general public what she knows about Andrew the man. Basically the Andrew the accused is not the Andrew she knows.This is no different when family and friends come out in support of others accused of a crime.

At the end of the day it will make no difference to the general public [or many here for that manner] who have already decided on Andrew's guilt.

Queen Camilla · #**1336** 02-15-2015, 04:17 AM

IMO, the most important thing in the article is Virginia's diary is her recollections of events written 8 years later.

I think Koo's intent was to show that the media can jump to conclusions and destroy a person's name and reputation. She pointed out how they did this to her. She made the connection to Andrew being named in a legal suit with her legal troubles with her ex boyfriend.

I also like that the RF is very informal with girlfriends. Koo was greeted as a member of the family by Prince Charles.

Koo could have given more information about the RF. She was there since February 1981 and she is still friendly with Andrew. She can write her book.

royal rob · #**1337** 02-15-2015, 05:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Queen Camilla

IMO, the most important thing in the article is Virginia's diary is her recollections of events written 8 years later.

I think Koo's intent was to show that the media can jump to conclusions and destroy a person's name and reputation. She pointed out how they did this to her. She made the connection to Andrew being named in a legal suit with her legal troubles with her ex boyfriend.

I also like that the RF is very informal with girlfriends. Koo was greeted as a member of the family by Prince Charles.

Koo could have given more information about the RF. She was there since February 1981 and she is still friendly with Andrew. She can write her book.

I don't know why we should believe someone's recollections that are 30 years old but not someone's that are 8 years old. Anyhow that's just my opinion

Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

wyevale · #**1338** 02-15-2015, 05:05 AM

Quote:

what she knows about Andrew the man

Indeed she KNOWS the man, unlike those here who have passed judgement [and found guilty] a man who has not even been charged of any crime in any court.

'Kangaroo court' anyone ????

Osipi · #**1339** 02-15-2015, 05:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by royal rob

I don't know why we should believe someone's recollections that are 30 years old but not someone's that are 8 years old. Anyhow that's just my opinion

I think the difference is that Robert's recollections that are 8 years old are based on a certain time frame as she remembers them. Koo Stark's recollections of the romantic side of her and Andrew's relationship tend to be more believable as they have remained close friends over the decades and they're still in contact with each other.

One claims to have had sex with Andrew. One has remained a friend of Andrew's after a romantic involvement. Big difference in my book.

royal rob · #**1340** 02-15-2015, 05:20 AM

A lot of people think they know someone and what they would or wouldn't do. But can often be very very wrong as that has been proven time and time again
I'm not saying if that's true about Andrew but it could well be

Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

And while I'm thinking about this Koo stark piece what has prince Charles being nice to her when she hit heads and thinking she was going to a petrol station for dinner with Andrew got to do with Andrews good character ? Why talk about her life 30 years ago now ? ??

Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community