S11.E22: Reunion (Part 2)

[Yours Truly]

15 hours ago, RealHousewife said:

Even if Big Kathy wasn't mother of the year, it sounds like Kathy loved her a great deal and still feels protective of her memory. I don't blame her. I'd feel the same way. It must have been really shocking and painful losing her when she was still quite young, only a year older than Kathy is now. 

I think Kathy is really adorable and sweet. Really enjoyed her this season. 

I know,

Kathy cries when thinking about her mom who is no longer here. I don't see that as proof that Big Kathy screwed them up. It was a pretty straight forward reaction. Now do I find it a bit curious that Kathy is still that emotional about the death of her mother after all these years and being the age she is now? A little, but different people have different emotional thresholds so it's not for me to act like she ISN'T supposed to be this emotional. At any rate it was absolutely genuine and sweet and I didn't find the display at all related to anything but a daughter that misses and loved her mother. Nothing more, nothing less. 

[Yours Truly]

13 hours ago, Lassus said:

Did I miss someone asking her WHY she was handing over her paychecks to Tom? 

Threats?  Shame?  Like, why?  

Laziness and convenience on her part. She had access to his billions and if in all she had to do was just throw her income into the pot since his money was financing her projects and expenses then to be honest I see this as a very matter of fact arrangement that she wouldn't be hard pressed to comply with. 

[RoseAllDay]

3 hours ago, Talented Tenth said:

Why is the accident being disbelieved now but wasn't disbelieved three/four years ago when she first mentioned it happened on the show?  

Because then, the story she told and her reaction to it — “Tom was in an accident and he broke his ankle, he’s fine, but is such a big baby” — were believable. Really — if he had truly flipped his car, suffered a head injury, and lain hurt for all that time, wouldn’t her blase reaction seem a bit off if that’s truly what happened? And look at how the story has evolved over this past season alone. She fits the narrative to whatever she thinks will put her in the best light.

I can never defend this woman.

EDIT —- Also, back then, nobody had any clue as to the people she and Tom really were. You take people at their word, as well as and what you know of them. Nobody had any reason to doubt her. Now, we do. Not that difficult to understand, really.

Edited October 21, 2021 by RoseAllDay

[babykin]

The argument that she hasn’t been accused of anything criminal isn’t relevant to me right now. And there is something called the court of public opinion. We, the viewing public, have formed opinions. I can’t put her in jail. I can only comment on her lack of empathy and shame. 
 

Just because someone isn’t arrested doesn’t mean they aren’t immoral. 

[SemiCharmedLife]

2 hours ago, Ss55 said:

Andy: stifling a yawn.

Dorit: "Am I boring you?"  She looked really ticked off too.  Lighten up girl.  It really gets under her skin if she feels people aren't hanging on to her every (many) word(s).

Maybe it's the accent- it has a hypnotizing effect on people.

[Yours Truly]

3 hours ago, Talented Tenth said:

I'm Team Erika until I have concrete proof that she did something wrong.  Watching how people respond to Erika has really cemented for me that perception is reality to a lot of people, not facts, plausibility, logic and evidence.  Even though there's no proof that Erika was complicit or aware that Tom was the one embezzling, the pressure is on her to show "remorse" for something she didn't do.  Erika has taken all the heat and she literally didn't work at Girardi Keese.  Everybody else should take note that whether they're guilty of something or not, just tell people what they want to hear to look more favorable -- the truth doesn't matter.  Sutton found out that she owned a baseball team and nobody's insisting that she had to have known being married to her husband, yet people are convinced that Erika had to know what Tom was doing.

I just wish people would stick with the context of their grievances with Erika. I CAN'T STAND Erika. Since her first season but I'm not about to assign her a bunch of punishments based on shit that Tom did.

I still can't stand Erika cause she's a nasty bully who is selfish and just couldn't bring herself to downsize her lifestyle so in turn she ended up in this ridiculous mess. 

Her being stuck in this is her own fault, not because she was an accomplice either through, knowledge or complacency. No, she's in this mess cause she wanted the glitz, the glam, and didn't bother to protect herself from this nonsense way before by being an active, responsible participant in this portion of her life. You know, like an adult?

Do I think she needs to be crucified in these legal matters? Nope. I think her prioritization of her public image is reprehensible and I do not believe she's doing herself any favors in that respect but I don't think the hammer has to come down as hard as the masses are demanding when it comes to legal punishment.

I don't think she should expect to keep any assets from that marriage and I don't believe she has a right to claw at any monetary compensation. I think it's fair for her to expect a bill somewhere in the midst of it all if the paper trail shows that her projects and company were funded by ill gotten gains which it seems to be leading to. I can't get behind the helpless, "what could I have done" defense with regards to that. You have a company, you are a product, you have an operation that you flaunt and benefit from. You need to have some working knowledge of how things are functioning behind the scenes. If you don't want to be bothered with the details that's all well and good but being lazy doesn't absolve you of the messes you end up in cause you couldn't be bothered to make an effort in those matters.

I think her main offense is being to "special and pretty" to have to be burdened with such things. I'm disgusted with her because her choice to be a kept woman enabled Tom to do what he did. I don't blame her but her lack of moral fiber is what makes me find her distasteful all in all. Law suits or no law suits. 

 

[SemiCharmedLife]

4 hours ago, laprin said:

During the Erika package of her discussing Tom, the expression on Erika’s face was telling. She looked like someone impressed by her own acting skills. When Andy asked if it was tough to watch and she said ‘no,’ it was one of the few honest statements she has made. 

I noticed that, as well.  She is a complete narcissist who is proud of her on screen performances, despite being roasted alive by the viewing public.  Robotika will be doubly pleased as she watches back her reunion performance- all that time prepping her answers with her lawyers has really paid off! /s

[Yours Truly]

2 hours ago, Rorysmom said:

I had high hopes for Erika when she first joined BH. But they were soon dashed as she came after LVP for reasons uncalled for IMO. Her "sniper from the side" observations didn't seem to come from actually knowing LVP personally. And her behavior set the tone for me.

They were further dashed as she acted so imperiously and inherently (TM PK) cold about her two lives and how dare you confuse them. Erika Jayne is NOT Erika Girardi and how dare you not know when to address me correctly.

This chapter of Erika is very much two things for me. I definitely believe that there was a lot of control, deference, and posturing in her marriage, and that it was very unequal. I have no doubt believing that she was in the dark about a lot and didn't have access to the family money. I could even believe that her paychecks went into an account from which she could access through controlled methods--because he would have cut off the access to the other money. I would have no problem believing that. A lawyer *that* prominent, with two previous wives, and choosing Erika for his third wife had a set way of doing things that likely were not to be challenged. Set in his ways + power/influence to the nth power for sure.

I can even get behind her doing what she can so that she isn't ruined by the actions of her husband.

However, Erika's personality is so nasty. Sutton was exactly right to consult an attorney and also still consider her a friend. She handled her so wrong. And not unlike other ladies in prior seasons. Her flexes continue to be so wrong and strong. And it is a shame because when she wants to, I can see who she could have been.

I'm with you on this.

I can easily believe that Erika rolled with the flow cause why wouldn't she? She didn't care about the details. She got her credit cards with a sky's the limit (non)max.  So what he wants things done this way that way or what have you? That was of no interest to her anyway as long as she didn't have to look a price tags what did she care how everything operated behind the scenes?

And you're right, she is just so nasty. Full stop.

She has to face the music because of HER choices in life and that's why I'm not feeling too badly for her. I'm not interested in piling on unnecessary accusation when the list of actual offenses is already enough for me to roll my eyes and shrug my shoulders about her woes. 

Edited October 21, 2021 by Yours Truly

[sistermagpie]

10 hours ago, ivygirl said:

*Raises hand* I repeated stories in my 20s, and I do it now in my 40s!

 

Count me in with those who scratch their head about Erika handing her checks over to Tom. I’m not married but if I needed to get a divorce, one of the first things I’d do was look into how to get my money out of his hands—as one, I wouldn’t want him to touch thar money anymore and two, I’d be aware that I need every cent of it. Right? Or is there something I’m missing (besides her already being aware that her assets were going to be implicated in the lawsuit)?

She literally said she was working so hard these past years to try to get money to leave him? How was that going to work if she was giving all the money to him? 

4 hours ago, Keywestclubkid said:

wow that sucks ... but i equate this (the kyles friend of a friend who saw 2 secs of footage) to WEBMD when you self diagnose and get medical opinions from other people and NOT doctors ...Until a doctor who is trained to see these things and spends more time with him in person then a quick 20 to 30 sec of "air" time he got...Esp when all they have to go on is that he liked to repeat story's .. hell i like to repeat stores a lot ( i work hospitality and do repeat a lot of the same stories over and over to different guest and could see where a lawyer would do the same thing talking to people esp when he is smoozing and entertaining them all the time) so does a lot of people around me and so far NONE of them or I have been diagnosed with dementia.. For Erika to try to use someone kyle knew saying that he has it has FACT just made me laugh..

It's unfortunate that the example we're seeing totally doesn't fit that because in the scene we saw Tom was telling a story that we all *know* he'd told before, that Erika had heard it before. It was totally appropriate in that situation, since he was talking to strangers. 

But still, even if that was his condition it has nothing to do with his crimes, where he was fielding phone calls with people asking why he hadn't done something he was supposed to have done and he always knew he hadn't and had a whole story about how it was somebody else's fault and they'd get the thing next week. Despite doctors apparently being too afraid to go on record saying yes, he has dementia, according to Erika plenty of people agreed with her and were calling her up for help.

3 hours ago, Talented Tenth said:

I'm Team Erika until I have concrete proof that she did something wrong.  Watching how people respond to Erika has really cemented for me that perception is reality to a lot of people, not facts, plausibility, logic and evidence.  Even though there's no proof that Erika was complicit or aware that Tom was the one embezzling, the pressure is on her to show "remorse" for something she didn't do.  Erika has taken all the heat and she literally didn't work at Girardi Keese.  Everybody else should take note that whether they're guilty of something or not, just tell people what they want to hear to look more favorable -- the truth doesn't matter.  Sutton found out that she owned a baseball team and nobody's insisting that she had to have known being married to her husband, yet people are convinced that Erika had to know what Tom was doing.

Why make this into people saying Erika knew everything and helped vs. Team Erika where you have to accept everything she says as truth. Plenty of people have agreed that she might not have known what was going on with Tom at the time. Nobody's building a legal case against her in that sense. They're talking about her stories now and how she seems to be reacting to the whole thing coming out.

3 hours ago, Talented Tenth said:

Why is the accident being disbelieved now but wasn't disbelieved three/four years ago when she first mentioned it happened on the show?  

Four years ago she said he had a minor accident and broke is ankle. Now she's telling a different story (sorry, different stories, since it keeps changing), one that ironically can't be backed up with concrete proof that should be easy to find. She's angry when asked for details, but voluntarily tosses out bizarre ones. This is an example of how people started out giving Erika the benefit of the doubt until she proved you couldn't do that. Of course everyone started out believing her as a default.

And the story is  part of a larger pattern of talking about Tom in sympathetic, defensive ways. Ways that frankly seem to be trying to connect his crimes with dementia, and so connect her victim hood to that too. 

I mean, I get thinking she had nothing to do with the actual crimes and didn't know or ask where the money was coming from. I don't understand using that as a reason to think it's wrong to point out the obvious inconsistencies in her story or think her behavior is particularly sympathetic to the victims and not defensive of Tom. This is somebody who gets furious at someone questioning her details because she's "not a liar" but reserves the right to casually announce that everything she said before wasn't true because she didn't want to tell the truth. She's mad at his family for dealing with him exactly the way she, his wife, is dealing with him.

Re: the Richards, I really do wonder about their whole thing with their mother. Whether or not she could be said to mess them up, she really does seem to have a lot of power and presence in their lives even all these years later. It's not obviously so very negative--I thought it was really cute when they were remembering her TV dinners on trays. Was Kathy assuming that Kyle's show was going to make her look bad? Despite Kyle being just as devoted to her as the rest? Do they just naturally fall into competition with each other, so Kathy thought she'd make herself look like the favorite or something? I have no idea, but that family clearly has a lot of issues that aren't just standard.

Edited October 21, 2021 by sistermagpie

[RoseAllDay]

3 hours ago, Ss55 said:

Andy: stifling a yawn.

Dorit: "Am I boring you?"  She looked really ticked off too.  Lighten up girl.  It really gets under her skin if she feels people aren't hanging on to her every (many) word(s).

I wonder how she’d react to Vicki Gunvalson pretending to fall asleep and snore? Not a big fan of Vicki’s, but this sure would put Dorito in her place.

[laprin]

3 hours ago, Talented Tenth said:

I'm Team Erika until I have concrete proof that she did something wrong.  Watching how people respond to Erika has really cemented for me that perception is reality to a lot of people, not facts, plausibility, logic and evidence.  Even though there's no proof that Erika was complicit or aware that Tom was the one embezzling, the pressure is on her to show "remorse" for something she didn't do.  Erika has taken all the heat and she literally didn't work at Girardi Keese.  Everybody else should take note that whether they're guilty of something or not, just tell people what they want to hear to look more favorable -- the truth doesn't matter.  Sutton found out that she owned a baseball team and nobody's insisting that she had to have known being married to her husband, yet people are convinced that Erika had to know what Tom was doing.

I am still struggling with how to understand this position, and I hope you can help me out. I do get that you believe there is no evidence Erika did anything wrong. Does this extend to Tom? If you believe Tom obtained the money illegally, do you think that he has an obligation to return the money? Because that money is a joint asset, if Tom is liable, do you believe Erika is also jointly liable, as is the case legally? The issue at hand for me is  whether she knew or not, I do believe Tom is 100% guilty of theft. There is evidence he received settlement money that was never dispersed to the victims. I don’t think anyone, including Erika, has a right to stolen goods. 

[Raiderred]

5 hours ago, Lassus said:

I'm also still slightly obsessed with this alleged accident that Erika can't help but bring up over and over and over.  I work in safety and regulatory compliance for commercial transport.  Accidents cause a truly massive paper trail that isn't just police reports.  Someone had to move and tow the car.  There's insurance to decide total loss or value, there's DMV records and fees for plates being turned over/transferred to a new car, there's damage to pay the city for any guardrails or posts struck, there's a bill to tow and store the car.  While I understand that every last question she won't answer is tossed over to "legally I can't answer this" you'd bet your ass that a case for damages and money is going to require an accounting for all of this crap.  Pettily, more than anything I want this accident to come out as garbage. 

I'm with you.  I only tune in to hear the REAL story or bullshit made up.  I don't care about Rinna, Harry or their kids and I really don't care about Dorit's story.  I want Erika, GRILLED to answer questions and clear things up or muddle them even more. 

[eleanorofaquitaine]

5 hours ago, Baltimore Betty said:

I find it hard to believe a high profile lawyer and a policeman that have family connection have two separate car accidents on the same night and there is no paperwork for either for anything.  What are the odds? Unreal.

No judge or jury will believe Erika at this point.

While I think that both accidents are works of fiction on Erika's part (or, I should say, I think that what happened with Tom's accident is what she said when it first happened - he hurt his knee or whatever but that was about it), I don't think she's ever claimed both accidents were the same night. 

One was Tom's cliff dive several years ago. The second, with her son, was allegedly this past winter when the Blizzard of Pasadena occurred.  But even she didn't claim that they both happened the same night. 

[Maximona]

3 hours ago, Talented Tenth said:

I'm Team Erika until I have concrete proof that she did something wrong.

Presumably, her signature is on the legal instrument that established EJ Global LLC,  She is the sole owner, after all; she had to have signed the tax returns—I believe under penalty of perjury.

 Money was advanced as a receivable from Girardi's firm  to her LLC.  More than $25,500,000.  The money was all spent on her.   One might even say, money was diverted for her use.

I don't think she's criminally liable for anything, and I'm not a lawyer.  But the burden of proof in civil actions is very different than the burden of proof in criminal actions.  I think there's a good chance she'll be liable for paying back the $25,500,000 that was diverted for her use.

There's a long list of lawsuits, going back at least two years, accusing Girardi of allegedly—there's that word again!  😊—defaulting  on million-dollar loans from numerous litigation financing firms and failing to pay clients their settlement funds. These predate Erika's divorce filing.  Maybe she could ignore the first couple.  But the third is the song that the caged canary in the coalmine sings.  😊. If she ignored that one, she is either very stupid—which she takes great pains to tell everyone she is not—or she was doing something very wrong in continuing to allow  EJ Global LLC to receive money from Girardi's firm.

Frankly, her claims of ignorance carry no water for me!  If your signature is on something, if you sign the tax forms, you should be aware of what's going on with it.

[Talented Tenth]

3 hours ago, renatae said:

I'm going to put myself in the position of wife who had no idea of the dastardly things her husband did.

I'm going to pretend I trust people implicitly and I'm completely clueless because of it. (However, Erika is a shrewd person and trusts no one.)

So, one day I wake up to all these allegations and they look pretty damning for my husband. Victims are going public. I'm completely innocent and heretofore completely unaware.

What's my reaction? Extreme embarrassment and sorrow that my husband was even capable of such a thing. My heart sinks whenever I think of it. I'm heartbroken for the victims and feel guilty my husband did this even though I didn't know. I can't apologize enough.

Sorry, I'm not seeing any of these reactions from Erika.

How was she supposed to display this?

[Keywestclubkid]

11 minutes ago, Maximona said:

Frankly, her claims of ignorance carry no water for me!  If your signature is on something, if you sign the tax forms, you should be aware of what's going on with it.

And in her book she BRAGS about it.. that she signed the tax returns etc etc..

[Jel]

Months ago, when the dementia talk started with Tom, I wondered if she was intentionally trying to blow that up for him because the things she said about Tom, just several months ago, were in no way supportive of that suggestion.  

And now, all of a sudden, she's been seeing it for years?  ( I do seem to remember one of the women asked her if she had seen evidence of it, and she, at the time said no. And that's what prompted me to wonder if she was trying to mess up his incapacity defense._

She does lie, but she justifies it as a "privacy matter". Or a "she was embarrassed" matter. Yah, it's still lying.  

The car accident/no records talk. Sheesh. I'd honestly be surprised if there wasn't a pending suit against the City of Pasadena for their "inadequate" highway guard rails in the works.

[Talented Tenth]

2 hours ago, Stats Queen said:

Because three/four years ago the story was Tom was in an accident and injured his ankle, nothing more than that - no rolling down a hill, flipping cars, head injury, he was unconscious for 12 hours, she wouldn’t let him have anesthesia, showed X-rays to a surgeon outside of the hospital, and a seemingly lack of a paper trail anywhere whatsoever.

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.

[Keywestclubkid]

5 minutes ago, Talented Tenth said:

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.

If the accident happened where are the receipts? there is no tow truck no cop no hospital receipt someone would have something ..His insurance would know .. NOPE nothing no one has any record of this "accident".. I am not saying he didn't hurt himself but the way she describes what happened people would have records

Edited October 21, 2021 by Keywestclubkid

[Ms Blue Jay]

4 hours ago, Talented Tenth said:

I'm Team Erika until I have concrete proof that she did something wrong.  Watching how people respond to Erika has really cemented for me that perception is reality to a lot of people, not facts, plausibility, logic and evidence.  

Really?   The perception on RHOBH is that Erika is a person worthy of being on the show and worthy of having four hours of time to speak and defend herself.  And, to have a chorus of defenders backing her up.  That she is a person who gets to be one of the stars of a reality show in full makeup, hair, and designer clothing.   That anytime anyone disagrees with her or questions her a little, she can defend herself by snarling at them like a rabid dog.  A lot of us disagree with that, so how are we agreeing with the perception?  It is the opposite, we are judging the situation for ourselves by using logic and evidence.  If we were going by "perception" we would simply say, We are fans of Erika, one of the equal castmembers of RHOBH, we love Andy, and we love the show.

Edited October 21, 2021 by Ms Blue Jay

[Mr. Miner]

I think Tom showed Erika how to write a check. He just never got around to showing her how to fill out a deposit slip.

[Talented Tenth]

2 hours ago, Stats Queen said:

Plausibility- her accident story keeps getting more and more fantatisical. Highly statistically improbable, especially without a paper trail.

Logic - she has elements of logics wrapped up in an enigma and cash -  up it is mostly illogical.

Evidence - we will see how it ends.

At the end of the day, she did eventually know what had happened and had zero f#%ks to give about these victims who are not “alleged”.

Lumping herself with abused women who actually don’t have the resources to escape an abusive situation is also repulsive.

I know enough about her and her words, actions/inactions, and general treatment of other people to know she is someone I never want to see on my TV screen ever again unless it is a televised legal trial.

One can be unethical, even if they didn’t break the law.

 

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 sympathy and that still doesn't mean she was complicit.  I have huge issues with people being convicted in the court of public opinion with absolutely no concrete proof of wrong doing.  It's like Erika was working at the firm instead of Tom.  Assassinating someone's character shouldn't be based on beliefs -- it should be based on proven facts.

[Baltimore Betty]

49 minutes ago, eleanorofaquitaine said:

While I think that both accidents are works of fiction on Erika's part (or, I should say, I think that what happened with Tom's accident is what she said when it first happened - he hurt his knee or whatever but that was about it), I don't think she's ever claimed both accidents were the same night. 

One was Tom's cliff dive several years ago. The second, with her son, was allegedly this past winter when the Blizzard of Pasadena occurred.  But even she didn't claim that they both happened the same night. 

Ooops, I realize my mistake in saying it was the same night.  The Blizzard of Pasadena could have been in July to hear Erika spin a tale, lol.

Still, the car rolling was such utter bull shit, it does not matter when she said it happened, it never happened.  

[Boo Boo]

Erika said she just turned 50.  And now she looks 65.  When they showed the flash back to 2019, she looks like a totally different person -- a person who looked 20 years younger than now.

I can't figure out what happened to her face.  Is she not doing fillers at all now and this is her face sagging now that it's not plumped up?  Can she really now afford fillers now?  Is that a ploy to show how she's now one of us poors?  

It almost looks like her face is collapsing inwards -- like someone who doesn't have teeth. 

Of course, that awful hair is doing her no favors.  But she looks really, really bad and doesn't even look like the same person.  I know she's gained weight, but it doesn't seem to be a huge amount of weight that would change your face.

And that hair is fucking awful.

[film noire]

 

4 hours ago, Talented Tenth said:

 I operate from a place of accuracy, logic, facts, evidence and concrete proof whereas a lot of people operate from a place of emotion.  

Aside from all the excellent snark and jokes this season,  I've seen only posts doing exactly that - using logic, facts, and accuracy when assessing Erika Girardi's role in this (including quotes from court filings, Erika's book re: her financial status in the marriage, refs to the ABC documentary) as well as common sense as to the facts offered by Erika herself (Pasadena blizzards, cars rolling in a manner last seen performed by Evel Knieval in the late 70s,  no financial agency in leaving a horrific marriage) so none of the reactions to this woman - reactions based on those facts - seem odd to me. People are logically holding Erika Girardi accountable for what we know Erika Girardi did for years: live off the stolen settlement funds of burn victims, widows, and orphans. 

What we don't know is whether that was a retroactive realization (I'm in reception of stolen funds but not part of the theft) or an ongoing awareness making her complicit (I knew  and I'm  going to get caught if I don't bolt).  Either way,  she has not once expressed genuine remorse for having lived large off the backs of people trying to survive being screwed over by fate, and then by her husband. Not once. Not a single fucking time, even though there are lawyers who know how to craft that kind of statement in their sleep - a statement expressing empathy but not culpability,  a human reaction to a man with his skin burned to a crisp robbed of medical funds, families with mothers and fathers and children blown up mid-air, all funding her glam squad lifestyle.

Lots of sympathy expressed for Tom, though. That was not in short supply.  Yet another fact about Erika to be considered.  Because if my husband had done this to me - forced me into a life paid for with monies stolen from victims - I'd be enraged at him, not his relatives, the press, the courts, the viewing audience, and the one housewife asking logical, accurate questions. 

 

Edited October 21, 2021 by film noire

[MaggieG]

I don't think Erika gave a crap if Tom cheated on her with 100 women, as long as the money kept rolling in and she could keep living the life of luxury. I also don't think she cared where the money came from.

Erika has said in the past that she is in this until the end or "I get half." She told him he needs to divorce her? If she truly had no idea what Tom was up to and she had proof if his cheating, any good divorce lawyer could have used that to get her a settlement or something since they didn't have a prenup.

[Boo Boo]

18 hours ago, RealHousewife said:

Much as Dorit hasn't been a fave of mine this season, she's beautiful and her nose, natural or not, suits her perfectly. That surgeon really thought she needed to get it done? I would never go to him. 

Other than her overly plumped lips, whatever she's had done -- if she's had something done -- it's really good work.  I loved her dress too.

[Keywestclubkid]

18 minutes ago, film noire said:

 

Aside from all the excellent snark and jokes this season,  I've seen only posts doing exactly that - using logic, facts, and accuracy when assessing Erika Girardi's role in this (including quotes from court filings, Erika's book re: her financial status in the marriage, refs to the ABC documentary) as well as common sense as to the facts offered by Erika herself (Pasadena blizzards, cars rolling in a manner last seen performed by Evel Knieval in the late 70s,  no financial agency in leaving a horrific marriage) so none of the reactions to this woman - reactions based on those facts - seem odd to me. People are logically holding Erika Girardi accountable for what we know Erika Girardi did for years: live off the stolen settlement funds of burn victims, widows, and orphans. 

What we don't know is whether that was a retroactive realization (I'm in reception of stolen funds but not part of the theft) or an ongoing awareness making her complicit (I knew  and I'm  going to get caught if I don't bolt).  Either way,  she has not once expressed genuine remorse for having lived large off the backs of people trying to survive being screwed over by fate, and then by her husband. Not once. Not a single fucking time, even though there are lawyers who know how to craft that kind of statement in their sleep - a statement expressing empathy but not culpability,  a human reaction to a man with his skin burned to a crisp robbed of medical funds, families with mothers and fathers and children blown up mid-air, all funding her glam squad lifestyle.

Lots of sympathy expressed for Tom, though. That was not in short supply.  Yet another fact about Erika to be considered.  Because if my husband had done this to me - forced me into a life paid for with monies stolen from victims - I'd be enraged at him, not his relatives, the press, the courts, the viewing audience, and the one housewife asking logical, accurate questions. 

 

All of this

[laprin]

57 minutes ago, Talented Tenth said:

How was she supposed to display this?

She could start by saying any or all of the following:

I’m sorry the victims have not received their money. If there is anything within my power to help, I want to do so. 

Although I love Tom, if he stole this money he deserves to rot in jail. I do not in anyway condone any actions that hindered the release of funds from those that deserve it.

I am ashamed and horrified by the things being said. I can only hope that if it’s true the victims get justice.

While this entire saga has been tough on me mentally and emotionally, I am not a victim. For years I Iived a life of luxury and still live a life many people would envy. I don’t expect people to feel sorry for me. Instead, they should feel for the true victims. 

 

[RealHousewife]

3 minutes ago, Boo Boo said:

Other than her overly plumped lips, whatever she's had done -- if she's had something done -- it's really good work.  I loved her dress too.

I snark on Dorit a lot, but tbh, I don't know that she's had serious work done. One of my unpopular opinions is she was always pretty and is probably at least mostly natural. People compare her high school and college pictures where she has dark, curly hair and no professional makeup to her in her 40s with straight, blonde hair and tons of makeup. Of course she'll look different. My guess is she's probably had her lips done and things like Botox/filler, which IRC she's copped to. She's just said no plastic surgery. 

[Boo Boo]

Even though she hasn't said very much yet, and I wasn't a fan early on this season, I hope Crystal comes back.  

[Keywestclubkid]

2 minutes ago, Boo Boo said:

Even though she hasn't said very much yet, and I wasn't a fan early on this season, I hope Crystal comes back.  

I don't dislike her but lets see when Andy gives her her spotlight for what she did this season .. I think she needs to own some shit (like saying she didn't know who people are and that was fine but G saying she didn't know Crystal was somehow beyond the pale) other then that she was just kinda treading water.

[rlc]

19 hours ago, Keywestclubkid said:

My best friends sisters cousin was watching it on tv and said yup it’s dementia… 

If said cousin was a person of color who lives in Canada, the story would be complete.

[amarante]

2 hours ago, SemiCharmedLife said:

I noticed that, as well.  She is a complete narcissist who is proud of her on screen performances, despite being roasted alive by the viewing public.  Robotika will be doubly pleased as she watches back her reunion performance- all that time prepping her answers with her lawyers has really paid off! /s

Erika spent a lot of prep time with her attorneys because they obviously knew what the questions would be.

Unfortunately there is no cross examination and Andy isn't even a skilled journalist who asks appropriate follow up questions.

 

[izabella]

34 minutes ago, RealHousewife said:

I snark on Dorit a lot, but tbh, I don't know that she's had serious work done. One of my unpopular opinions is she was always pretty and is probably at least mostly natural. People compare her high school and college pictures where she has dark, curly hair and no professional makeup to her in her 40s with straight, blonde hair and tons of makeup. Of course she'll look different. My guess is she's probably had her lips done and things like Botox/filler, which IRC she's copped to. She's just said no plastic surgery. 

Dorit has a different face each time we see her, and it's due to TONS of makeup.  That one episode where someone was hanging a portrait of her in her house, she was not wearing makeup and looked unrecognizable, and not in a good way. 

[Yours Truly]

2 hours ago, Keywestclubkid said:

If the accident happened where are the receipts? there is no tow truck no cop no hospital receipt someone would have something ..His insurance would know .. NOPE nothing no one has any record of this "accident".. I am not saying he didn't hurt himself but the way she describes what happened people would have records

I didn't want to do this and I totally am NOT an Erika fan but where did this idea, that there are no receipts or paper trial, come from?

Is there this assumption that there is NO record of any of this simply cause it hasn't been provided anywhere publicly? I mean do we know that there ISN'T a tow truck company out there that billed someone for the car tow or that there isn't a record of the accident somewhere? I admit that I haven't combed through every thing there is about all these events but I keep reading that there should be a paper trail. Well how do we know there isn't something somewhere? 

I don't think I could find the receipt I got from triple A 8 months ago for when the guy came out and replaced my battery or for the time they towed my truck to my mechanic. And yes the insurance company might have that info IF they filed a claim but even then why would we think the insurance information would be somewhere that just anybody can locate? Did she say that cops came on the scene? That I can't remember. Did Erica just load him up in the car and bring him to the hospital or was there an ambulance? Having an ambulance doesn't automatically generate police presence or police report. Again, I'm very thin on any info out there besides what I see on the show so it is quite possible that I've missed something.  

I'm so not on Erika's team but As choppy as Erika's account is there isn't all that much that's shifted. It's the adding of more details that makes it seem like she's changing her story. And her need to use hyperbole here and there does her no favors either.

It's my understanding that her initial telling of the story was EXTREMELY abbreviated in order to be private and not spill the beans that her marriage ain't a fairytale. The next telling is her opening up A BIT but still keeping stuff close to her chest still trying to be minimal with the info and when things really started hitting the fan she started vomiting all of the details in a panic and it just spewed out into a huge mess of information that seemed to contradict itself. 

I think there was an accident. The jist is she found him, she was with her son at the time, they went to the hospital, they wanted to put him under to do surgery on the ankle but Erika checked with the family doctor to see if it's a surgery that could wait because she wasn't comfortable letting him go under, at his age, and right after having a head injury from the car accident. I actually don't find any of that unbelievable. 

To me, It's the craziness of her timing and delivery that get in the way of how the information is received. 

Edited October 21, 2021 by Yours Truly

[Keywestclubkid]

24 minutes ago, Yours Truly said:

I didn't want to do this and I totally am NOT an Erika fan but where did this idea, that there are no receipts or paper trial, come from?

Is there this assumption that there is NO record of any of this simply cause it hasn't been provided anywhere publicly? I mean do we know that there ISN'T a tow truck company out there that billed someone for the car tow or that there isn't a record of the accident somewhere? I admit that I haven't combed through every thing there is about all these events but I keep reading that there should be a paper trail. Well how do we know there isn't something somewhere? 

I don't think I could find the receipt I got from triple A 8 months ago for when the guy came out and replaced my battery or for the time they towed my truck to my mechanic. And yes the insurance company might have that info IF they filed a claim but even then why would we think the insurance information would be somewhere that just anybody can locate? Did she say that cops came on the scene? That I can't remember. Did Erica just load him up in the car and bring him to the hospital or was there an ambulance? Having an ambulance doesn't automatically generate police presence or police report. Again, I'm very thin on any info out there besides what I see on the show so it is quite possible that I've missed something.  

I'm so not on Erika's team but As choppy as Erika's account is there isn't all that much that's shifted. It's the adding of more details that makes it seem like she's changing her story. And her need to use hyperbole here and there does her no favors either.

It's my understanding that her initial telling of the story was EXTREMELY abbreviated in order to be private and not spill the beans that her marriage ain't a fairytale. The next telling is her opening up A BIT but still keeping stuff close to her chest still trying to be minimal with the info and when things really started hitting the fan she started vomiting all of the details in a panic and it just spewed out into a huge mess of information that seemed to contradict itself. 

I think there was an accident. The jist is she found him, she was with her son at the time, they went to the hospital, they wanted to put him under to do surgery on the ankle but Erika checked with the family doctor to see if it's a surgery that could wait because she wasn't comfortable letting him go under, at his age, and right after having a head injury from the car accident. I actually don't find any of that unbelievable. 

To me, It's the craziness of her timing and delivery that get in the way of how the information is received. 

Andy str8 up asked her if she had any proof because fans were asking because it sounded so outlandish (or something along those lines)and she said she didn’t have any. No one is questioning if an accident occurred he obviously broke his ankle 4 years ago “allegedly” It’s the Extra Extra Extra that she added that is being questioned. Flipping a car several times being ejected (or rolling out depending on the story she is telling) him unconscious for 12hrs but calling her and her finding him. Something that major would have a trail that she could pull out and say see I know it sounded fucking nuts but look it’s true. And it didn’t help that the story seemed to change at that first telling 4 times MID telling. It just comes across has her covering something or making it up. 

Edited October 21, 2021 by Keywestclubkid

[Surrealist]

3 hours ago, sistermagpie said:

Re: the Richards, I really do wonder about their whole thing with their mother. Whether or not she could be said to mess them up, she really does seem to have a lot of power and presence in their lives even all these years later. It's not obviously so very negative--I thought it was really cute when they were remembering her TV dinners on trays. Was Kathy assuming that Kyle's show was going to make her look bad? Despite Kyle being just as devoted to her as the rest? Do they just naturally fall into competition with each other, so Kathy thought she'd make herself look like the favorite or something? I have no idea, but that family clearly has a lot of issues that aren't just standard.

It's been a handful of years since I read House of Hilton. The impression I got was that Big Kathy stoked discord among her daughters by playing favorites, etc.

Looking at the sisters' relationships now, you can see that this seems to be the case.

They love their mother because she was their mother. No doubt they have good memories of her. I'm not questioning that aspect. Out of all three sisters I feel as if Kyle is the most honest about her childhood leaning more toward dysfunctional. She's kind of said it that way on the show. I'm sure all the sisters know it was fucked up, but Kyle is the only one who openly acknowledges that her childhood was weird. That's why Kathy was upset about Kyle's show because people were going to read Big Kathy into Alicia Silverstone's character. Plus Big Kathy was one of those "We keep our business to ourselves" types, but this sort of attitude can be used against children to keep them quiet about abuse and other family discord.

This is why the dynamics are jarring to me. 

At any rate, I would never mock Kathy, Kyle, or Kim for grieving their mother. She was a huge presence in their lives, and obviously a dynamic presence in the lives of others too. 

Edited October 21, 2021 by Surrealist

[Talented Tenth]

1 hour ago, laprin said:

I am still struggling with how to understand this position, and I hope you can help me out. I do get that you believe there is no evidence Erika did anything wrong. Does this extend to Tom? If you believe Tom obtained the money illegally, do you think that he has an obligation to return the money? Because that money is a joint asset, if Tom is liable, do you believe Erika is also jointly liable, as is the case legally? The issue at hand for me is  whether she knew or not, I do believe Tom is 100% guilty of theft. There is evidence he received settlement money that was never dispersed to the victims. I don’t think anyone, including Erika, has a right to stolen goods. 

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.  

[sistermagpie]

2 hours ago, Talented Tenth said:

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?  

Saying "It makes sense to me" and "well, how is she supposed to react when people call her a liar?" is just as emotional a reaction to her as "That doesn't make sense to me" or "Why is she only ever sympathetic to Tom?" 

If we're going just by facts and evidence no, again, there's no one particular reaction to Erika that's more backed up by facts than any other. Rinna isn't acting less emotionally than Sutton.

1 minute ago, Talented Tenth said:

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.  

But why wouldn't she be bankrupted by it? There's not really much of a mystery about where the money went. Tom's been spending beyond his means for years. A lot of that money went to finance Erika's career and he also put money into her company. Which means she spent somebody else's money. Why wouldn't that come back from her, whether she knew about it or not? Of course it sucks to have been put in this position by Tom without her knowledge. She has every reason to be angry at Tom for that. 

[chlban]

4 hours ago, babykin said:

The argument that she hasn’t been accused of anything criminal isn’t relevant to me right now. And there is something called the court of public opinion. We, the viewing public, have formed opinions. I can’t put her in jail. I can only comment on her lack of empathy and shame. 
 

Just because someone isn’t arrested doesn’t mean they aren’t immoral. 

This. It baffles me that the entire argument from the Coven and Erika's fans seems to be she didn't know what Tom was doing. OK, so if I accept that premise, I am left with a woman that was blindsided to find out her husband stole money from widows and orphans. Where is the anger, not at her cast mates or viewers, how about to Tom? If she chooses to make excuses for him, then I at least expect horror and empathy. "Oh my God  Tom did something awful due to his Dementia". But, nope. What I see is a nasty bitch telling ridiculous lies that don't even seem to have a point, feeling sorry for herself, instead of the victims, not even willing to discuss returning some of the stolen money, posting half naked pictures of herself on social media, because nothing says "I feel your pain" like spreading your legs and putting on a pair of $2,000 shoes and little else on Instagram. It us all about Erika and her tragic life, living in a multi million dollar home, driving around in a brand new Range Rover, and still maintaining a glam squad and an "assistant". Assistant for what? She could have handled this thing completely different and generated at least some sympathy, or at least not the level of abject hate she is facing. Erika cares for Erika. She is a vile, self centered exhibitionist with a frightening  temper. She has also proven herself to be such a liar that NOTHING she says in court will ever be believed. Yet she still thinks she is the smartest person in the room. 

Edited October 21, 2021 by chlban

[Talented Tenth]

3 hours ago, Maximona said:

Presumably, her signature is on the legal instrument that established EJ Global LLC,  She is the sole owner, after all; she had to have signed the tax returns—I believe under penalty of perjury.

 Money was advanced as a receivable from Girardi's firm  to her LLC.  More than $25,500,000.  The money was all spent on her.   One might even say, money was diverted for her use.

I don't think she's criminally liable for anything, and I'm not a lawyer.  But the burden of proof in civil actions is very different than the burden of proof in criminal actions.  I think there's a good chance she'll be liable for paying back the $25,500,000 that was diverted for her use.

There's a long list of lawsuits, going back at least two years, accusing Girardi of allegedly—there's that word again!  😊—defaulting  on million-dollar loans from numerous litigation financing firms and failing to pay clients their settlement funds. These predate Erika's divorce filing.  Maybe she could ignore the first couple.  But the third is the song that the caged canary in the coalmine sings.  😊. If she ignored that one, she is either very stupid—which she takes great pains to tell everyone she is not—or she was doing something very wrong in continuing to allow  EJ Global LLC to receive money from Girardi's firm.

Frankly, her claims of ignorance carry no water for me!  If your signature is on something, if you sign the tax forms, you should be aware of what's going on with it.

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 her to sign.  Sutton owns a baseball team she didn't know about.  Why aren't people insisting that she should have known or had to have known? 

[Talented Tenth]

2 hours ago, Keywestclubkid said:

If the accident happened where are the receipts? there is no tow truck no cop no hospital receipt someone would have something ..His insurance would know .. NOPE nothing no one has any record of this "accident".. I am not saying he didn't hurt himself but the way she describes what happened people would have records

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?

[chlban]

3 hours ago, laprin said:

I am still struggling with how to understand this position, and I hope you can help me out. I do get that you believe there is no evidence Erika did anything wrong. Does this extend to Tom? If you believe Tom obtained the money illegally, do you think that he has an obligation to return the money? Because that money is a joint asset, if Tom is liable, do you believe Erika is also jointly liable, as is the case legally? The issue at hand for me is  whether she knew or not, I do believe Tom is 100% guilty of theft. There is evidence he received settlement money that was never dispersed to the victims. I don’t think anyone, including Erika, has a right to stolen goods. 

The law agrees with you. Even legitimate charities had to return money in aftermath of the Madoff Ponzi scheme.

[Talented Tenth]

2 hours ago, Ms Blue Jay said:

Really?   The perception on RHOBH is that Erika is a person worthy of being on the show and worthy of having four hours of time to speak and defend herself.  And, to have a chorus of defenders backing her up.  That she is a person who gets to be one of the stars of a reality show in full makeup, hair, and designer clothing.   That anytime anyone disagrees with her or questions her a little, she can defend herself by snarling at them like a rabid dog.  A lot of us disagree with that, so how are we agreeing with the perception?  It is the opposite, we are judging the situation for ourselves by using logic and evidence.  If we were going by "perception" we would simply say, We are fans of Erika, one of the equal castmembers of RHOBH, we love Andy, and we love the show.

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.

[Keywestclubkid]

8 minutes ago, Talented Tenth said:

Either the premise has to be that you think the accident happened or you don't think it did.  

No I’m saying IF the accident happened like she said in the 5th retelling.

Edited October 21, 2021 by Keywestclubkid

[Jel]

11 minutes ago, Talented Tenth said:

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 her to sign.  Sutton owns a baseball team she didn't know about.  Why aren't people insisting that she should have known or had to have known? 

I agree with you -- that probably happens in a lot of families.

Just one li'l point of contention though: Erika is not a kept woman, she's Tom's wife. Different in many ways, including legally,

Edited October 21, 2021 by Jel

[chlban]

2 hours ago, Talented Tenth said:

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.

Of course they are beneficial. She is pushing the idea of a head injury as yet another excuse for his vile actions. 

[RoseAllDay]

Watching this now. I’m struck by the way she is so guarded and calculated with her answers to Andy’s grilling — it’s like chess, trying to stay two moves ahead. Does this woman have any human emotion at ALL? Stone-faced and cold.

She saw the shit coming toward the fan and got out of the marriage. No thought of Tom. Happily married one week, out the door the next. Actions scream louder than words. Nobody can tell me differently. She made a business deal when she was in her 20s; it’s since gone bad; she’s gotten out. Tom can fend for himself.

”Sorry, I’m not angry. I’m angry.” That’s called panic — from being called on your shit for the first time in this whole mess. I call bullshit on her dismissal of her “campy, fun songs.” Her career was basically an anthem and metaphor to how high on the hog she was living, and she was rubbing it in everybody’s face.

I am sorry Crystal sat passively by while Dr. Girardi was explaining dementia. I’m sure she had some insights.

STFU! Half the damn reunion has been Erika. I get it’s the main storyline, but she’s talking in circles, and 99.9% is falsehoods. Move. On.

EDIT. I just hit the Stop button when Andy said they’d continue the discussion after break. There’s nothing more to be said, for God’s sake. She’s gaslighting at this point.

Edited October 21, 2021 by RoseAllDay

[Talented Tenth]

2 hours ago, film noire said:

 

Aside from all the excellent snark and jokes this season,  I've seen only posts doing exactly that - using logic, facts, and accuracy when assessing Erika Girardi's role in this (including quotes from court filings, Erika's book re: her financial status in the marriage, refs to the ABC documentary) as well as common sense as to the facts offered by Erika herself (Pasadena blizzards, cars rolling in a manner last seen performed by Evel Knieval in the late 70s,  no financial agency in leaving a horrific marriage) so none of the reactions to this woman - reactions based on those facts - seem odd to me. People are logically holding Erika Girardi accountable for what we know Erika Girardi did for years: live off the stolen settlement funds of burn victims, widows, and orphans. 

What we don't know is whether that was a retroactive realization (I'm in reception of stolen funds but not part of the theft) or an ongoing awareness making her complicit (I knew  and I'm  going to get caught if I don't bolt).  Either way,  she has not once expressed genuine remorse for having lived large off the backs of people trying to survive being screwed over by fate, and then by her husband. Not once. Not a single fucking time, even though there are lawyers who know how to craft that kind of statement in their sleep - a statement expressing empathy but not culpability,  a human reaction to a man with his skin burned to a crisp robbed of medical funds, families with mothers and fathers and children blown up mid-air, all funding her glam squad lifestyle.

Lots of sympathy expressed for Tom, though. That was not in short supply.  Yet another fact about Erika to be considered.  Because if my husband had done this to me - forced me into a life paid for with monies stolen from victims - I'd be enraged at him, not his relatives, the press, the courts, the viewing audience, and the one housewife asking logical, accurate questions. 

 

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 Erika be the target, but it's because of his actions that she is.  All of those things come into play when she assesses their relationship and what she's going through.  There are lot of high profile people who have done white collar crimes and their spouses don't leave them.