Jim didnt bring her hubby into it
 

Can someone please show me the transcript where Jim says anything about her dead hubby. He offered a key to a door that Linda opened. Jim didn't say her dead hubby was a thief or even that she hated him for something he did, he simply offered an obscure reason to why she hated him and Linda played the victim and offered all the gory details when all she needed to say was, he is talking crap, I don't hate him for that, I hate him because ???????????????

Don't blame Jim for being a twat when he only provided the key, not the story.

He told Luisa to ask Linda about the dressing room. He clearly was trying to humiliate Linda by humiliating her dead husband.

What does Linda's dead husband stealing money have to do with Linda and Jim's arguments? NOTHING. Clearly he was just bringing it up to hurt Linda.

Well he did really, the Frank Carsons dressing room was about her dead husband

Coming from a man who is implicated in much worse crimes (molesting young girls) it's amazing that he is stooping to such tabloid lows against Linda. The implications against HIM in the tabloids is much much worse than anything Linda's dead husband was ever implicated in.

He's such an angry old pathetic man.

He was merely reminding her that if she wished to get into a real ****storm then she better bring her perfumed umbrella and prepare for a brown tsunami

The police eventually dismissed the case and Jim was completely exonerated


Any idiot can allege a crime

implying that i'm stupid for my opinion is a personal attack, reported. Everyone else around here likes to report me, so i guess i'll start playing the game too.

That is not true:nono:

Catweazle, shhhhhhh, you don't want to burst a bubble. Let them have their day. We all know the truth, lol.

Was'nt Jim found NOT GUILTY of those allegations?Wheras Lindas husband was arrested for stealing Frank Carsons money?

I think the implication was that your comment was stupid which is not the same as calling you stupid. Stephen Hawkin can make a stupid comment...

Well Jim said he didn't know what the truth was, right? when Linda confronted him, he said he just read it in the tabloids, that was truth enuf for him...

no, it was clearly a personal attack.

Jimmy Saville also was never proven to have molested young girls, just because you can't prove it doesn't mean there's nothing to it... It just means there's not enough evidence.

In time, you will heal.

In the case of Jim, the legal process was exercised and there is nothing more to say. move on.

Wow you are annoying. In time you will still be patronizing and annoying. Stop being patronizing, and then you won't be annoying.

where there is smoke...

Exactly, she brought it on herself. People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Its not like they were all sitting there all lovey dovey and he stood up and announced it, that would be out of order. It was ammo that he used to shut her up and put the gobby cow in her place. Hate the way she immediately turned and made it look as if he was poking at her dead husband. He wasn't. She asked for it.

jim would have a field day in here with you lostalex,.

I am glad you are not in a jury

linda jumps down jims throat any chance she gets then turns and looks to everyone else to get them on side, then sayin 'oooo its a jimism'
i cant stand her

what??? that is being a twat :S he knew exactly what it would do, and he knew that lusia would tell her, not only that he said it twice to ask linda about it, he knew that would hurt her badly, non of us know what happened, yes her husband seems to have been caught stealing but that wasn't her, and we do not know the whole story, and jim knows this and he used it in a vile and horrible way, not only this he did his little trick, of acting all innocent in what he had said and blamed lusia when he told her to ask, i swear to god if i was in that house and i heard both bits on passing i'd of smashed his face in by now, arguing and what not is one thing, being petty and devious is another

No, he was not found not guilty. The case was dismissed due to 'insufficient evidence' which is a different thing entirely.

Exactly. Being found "not guilty" is not the same as being found "innocent".

Unfortunately for victims, our legal system has a very high standard, "innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" which means for every 1 innocent person being put in jail, there are 1 thousand guilty people going free. Especially in sexual abuse cases, because it's almost impossible to PROVE sexual abuse.