Jump to content
Forums forums
PRIMETIMER

Talented Tenth

Member
  • Content Count

    473
  • Joined

Community Reputation

2.1k Excellent
  1. I couldn't watch last season because I couldn't stomach revolting kelly dodd. I can't stand boring Emily either. I'm watching this episode, and the cast just doesn't seem to work. They need to get rid of Emily -- she has brought NOTHING the entire time she's been on. Gina can go too. If they're not going to bring back Tamra, then they need to bring back Gretchen to replace Emily and someone else to replace Gina -- then we can get a cast worth watching. I don't know if I can stick with this. It's just not holding my attention. Bringing back Heather was cool, but it wasn't enough.
  2. No shade, are you a mental health professional? I don't think it's odd that when discussing one's mother they become sad and start crying. There is a difference between being in a state of grief and becoming sad when a topic is brought up.
  3. I didn't realize there was a statute of limitations on missing a loved one. Kathy gave more than one interview stating she'll never have a diamond. She will only be a friend because that allows her not to have to give more of her life. She's practically a housewife anyway. She's a friend in name only.
  4. As far as I know an investigation is still going on. It's murky to me because Tom made legitimate millions as well. Millions was spent on Erika over many years. I don't know that all of Tom's assets have been uncovered. After the investigation is complete and there isn't enough from Tom to pay all of the victims back, I don't have an issue with Erika having to turn over gifts if it can be proven that they came from embezzled money. According to Erika she turned over her money to Tom and she left with no money so she wouldn't have millions stashed away to give.
  5. I don't see a head injury as being beneficial to anyone. I can see that as her trying to figure out what was going on. Let's keep in mind that by the time the show aired it was months after she said it on the show and much more info came out. Erika was finding out things just like the general public. It's not like Tom is going to get his license back and won't be on the hook because Erika said he banged his head. I don't think she was trying to insinuate he stole because of a head injury, just that it may have contributed to some of his decline and actions towards her.
  6. That would be a great PR statement. Again, if she said that from the beginning that doesn't mean it would have been genuine. This also gives credence to my point that if she had said what people wanted to hear, the public opinion would most likely be more favorable -- irrespective of whether she was complicit or not. I'm not invested in how she's behaving now; I'm interested in whether or not there is proof that she was complicit and so far that is absolutely none.
  7. I've seen a lot of reports misconstrued, speculation used as facts and misinformation when it comes to the situation. For example, many people believe the 20 mil+ for the LLC was a lump sum but it was over years. It's hard to have a productive discussion when the facts aren't even understood. I think Erika did a good job of explaining that she's angry but she's also grateful for the lifestyle she was provided and actually loved him. Just because someone you love does something bad doesn't mean a switch goes off and only have hate for them. I don't think it was Tom's intention to have E
  8. I'm referring to the people who call her a fraud, a criminal, a scammer, complicit, a liar (in relation to not being aware of Tom's embezzlement) and other comments in that vein. There is no concrete proof as to those things. The reasons I am given as to why anyone feels comfortable labeling her are not based on indisputable proof/evidence. Not liking Erika's personality or antics is a totally separate issue.
  9. Either the premise has to be that you think the accident happened or you don't think it did. If you're saying it did then I'm not seeing why it's so unbelievable that she held back embarrassing details years ago when she first talked about it on the show. If you're saying it didn't happen, then what is the theory as to why she would make it up years ago?
  10. Erika was a kept woman, so it's no shock that Tom spent millions on her. I think it's unrealistic and unfair to expect Erika to read through all documents signed or have them reviewed by attorneys when they were from her husband who was a high powered attorney. I seriously doubt people are reading through everything their husbands have them sign. People don't even read things they sign for themselves. It's easy now to say in hindsight she should have been aware but there are millions of women all over the world who aren't. Even Kathy said she wouldn't read through something if Rick wanted
  11. Tom definitely misappropriated the money. I think it's plausible that Erika is a victim of Tom too. I think that through investigation, hopefully where all the money went is uncovered. I do not think Erika should be bankrupted due to the actions of Tom. She was a kept woman and had no reason to think Tom was doing something wrong -- especially as a highly respected lawyer.
  12. This goes back to what I said about operating from a place of emotion. Erika just should have told people what they wanted to hear because whether it's genuine or not, it's what wins people over. It's interesting that people are accusing her of being such an actress or so cunning, so wouldn't it make sense for her just to placate the detractors by being super sympathetic publicly? Erika has acted the same way since she's been on Housewives. All of a sudden everything she says is being picked apart and being called untrue in an effort to paint her as a fraud. She could have zero symp
  13. It makes sense to me. While she was with him the additional details would have been embarrassing for him and she wanted to protect him. I also can't keep track of what people are claiming -- that the accident never happened or that the additional details are false? If the claim is that the accident never happened, then that would mean that she made it up years ago when she spoke about it on the show. If the claim is that it did happen but the additional details are not true, what would be the motive? The extra details aren't beneficial to her or Tom. You can't argue both points.
  14. There's no proof that she "knew at the end and still used the money like it wasn't a big deal" which is my issue with the great majority of the comments. I surrender though, I'm exhausted with having exchanges about it. I operate from a place of accuracy, logic, facts, evidence and concrete proof whereas a lot of people operate from a place of emotion. The woman hasn't even been charged with anything or legally accused but she's constantly being attacked like she has. The concept of innocent until proven guilty has gone out of the window. Posting in skimpy outfits on instagram, not displa
×
×
  • Create New...

Customize font-size