Did Erica Jayne misplace $750K diamond earrings? Lawyer Ronald Richards demands answers from ‘RHOBH’ star
BEVERLY HILLS, CALIFORNIA: Attorney Ronald Richards has made a shocking claim about 'Real Housewives of Beverly Hills' star Erika Jayne. The lawyer claimed that the infamous $750,000 diamond earrings, which were also featured on the show, not were real earrings. Richards revealed the critical information on the podcast 'So Bad It's Good' with Ryan Bailey. According to the lawyer, the earrings that the 'RHOBH' housewife had flipped were diamonds of 6.01 and 6.57 carats. However, the original earrings were 7.09 and 7.02 carats. Richards had noticed the drop in the carat value of the earrings. This led to the earrings being given a lower price tag at the auction where the diamonds were to be sold.
Erica received the diamonds as a gift from her ex-husband Tom Girardi in 2004. She had to turn over the earrings to Tom's bankruptcy trustee months ago as part of her estranged husband's bankruptcy and embezzlement proceedings. Tom had used the money, which was earmarked for victims of a plane crash and a fire victim, among others, for the gift from his famous wife. Richards claimed that Erica had apparently handed over the "replacement earrings" that Tom had purchased after the original earrings were stolen in a 2007 burglary. The replacement earrings were expected to fetch between $250,000 and $350,000 at the upcoming auction. The attorney also posted the receipts on Twitter, writing, "Here are the receipts for the earring issue. I will be on air now answering questions about it."
RELATED ARTICLES
'RHOBH' star Diana Jenkins persuades Erika Jayne to show sympathy towards victims, shocks fans
Here are the receipts for the earring issue. I will be on air now answering questions about it. https://t.co/9IY1F1DwrO
— Ronald Richards (@RonaldRichards) November 23, 2022
Richards also released a 16-page document with the receipts of the two pairs of earrings. The document also includes statements by Erica, Tom, and the jeweler who sold the earrings. The attorney has been Tweeting details of the accusation against the star. “Here are the facts,” Ronald tweeted. “1. Erika claims under oath she had a burglary in 2006. 2. Tom claims to the franchise tax board it was 2007. 3. Erika claims Tom bought her replacement earrings in 2007 under oath. 4. The jeweler confirms this under oath. His invoice lists two 2004 GIA certificates tied to the earrings he sold.”
✍️Here are the facts: 1. Erika claims under oath she had a burglary in 2006. 2. Tom claims to the franchise tax board it was 2007. 3. Erika claims Tom bought her replacement earrings in 2007 under oath. 4. The jeweler confirms this under oath. His invoice lists two 2004 GIA⬇️
— Ronald Richards (@RonaldRichards) November 23, 2022
He continued, “5. The earrings Erika ultimately turned over the Trustee are NOT the same earrings on the invoice. 6. The GIA certificates that were ordered in 2022 show they are not the same diamonds. Erika, please explain what happened.” Adding, “I am sure there this a good explanation. Receipts will be posted later today. We tried to dumb this down as you always request so we are holding off on the receipts until we get a consensus everyone understands. Ask any questions you need to.”
🔜certificates tied to the earrings he sold. 5. The earrings Erika ultimately turned over the Trustee are NOT the same earrings on the invoice. 6. The GIA certificates that were ordered in 2022 show they are not the same diamonds. Erika, please explain what happened...⬇️
— Ronald Richards (@RonaldRichards) November 23, 2022
📢I am sure there this a good explanation. What do you think? Receipts will be posted later today. We tried to dumb this down as you always request so we are holding off on the receipts until we get a consensus everyone understands. Ask any questions you need to. 🔚
— Ronald Richards (@RonaldRichards) November 23, 2022
A few fans of the housewife believe that perhaps it was only a case of an accidental mix-up on the part of Erica since the earrings look so similar, a theory the attorney has entertained. Whatever the reason might be, it does seem to be quite a pretty mess indeed.