Ring-Gate on RHOSLC Season 4: Did Monica Garcia Steal Lisa Barlow’s Anniversary Ring?
In the swirl of salt-lake glamour, betrayal, and Bravo theatrics, one subplot from RHOSLC Season 4 has fans divided: the mysterious disappearance of Lisa Barlow’s $60,000 anniversary ring — and whether controversial new cast member Monica Garcia had anything to do with it.
My opinion? She definitely stole Lisa’s ring.
The Set-Up: Lost Ring, Loud Emotions
Early in the season, Lisa revealed she lost a ring she claimed was worth $60,000 (though she later amended to $58,000).
The ring wasn’t just valuable monetarily — it held sentimental weight. Lisa shared that it was a gift from her husband John and tied to a period when she feared they might not have more children.
In the Palm Springs airport bathroom meltdown, Lisa and castmates reportedly searched for 45+ minutes in stalls, trash cans, even tampons (yes, that line made the airtime).
Monica Garcia, meanwhile, was one of the women in the bathroom search.
At the reunion, the ring — and rumors about Monica — became a full confrontation point. Some cast members implied Monica was behind its disappearance; Monica denied and pushed back hard.
Monica’s Defense (and How Lisa Reacted)
Monica’s response has been: what ring are you talking about? She claims any ring she wore was a cheap knockoff she bought — allegedly from Amazon — used to “troll” Lisa, when Lisa pointed out that Monica was actually wearing the missing (stolen) ring on her finger at BravoCon during their franchise panel!
Lisa doesn’t buy that. She publicly called Monica “obsessed” for wearing such a ring, and essentially accused her of trying to provoke by wearing a clone of Lisa’s missing piece.
Meredith Marks, another castmate, has said she has “no reason to believe” Monica actually stole the ring — though she acknowledged Monica’s ring looked similar and noted Monica’s claim it was from Amazon.
Some castmates and fans believe Monica playing “victim/distracter” is part of the strategy: deflect with accusations, gaslight, and make everyone doubt their own memory.
Bravocon Reveal: Monica Wore the Ring (Claimed Fake)
Here’s where things get spicy: At BravoCon, Lisa reportedly spotted Monica wearing a ring that looked suspiciously like the missing one. Monica claimed that the ring she had on was fake — a trolling prop from Amazon — intended to needle Lisa (i.e. “look at me, I’ve got your ring, haha”).
If that’s accurate, here’s why that “defense” is actually a red flag rather than proof of innocence:
1. It’s too convenient. The notion that someone would manufacture a fake version of an extremely expensive, unique piece to wear in front of the owner — and claim it’s a joke — is absurd on its face. (That’s something a sociopath would do, if true.)
2. Public display = audacity. Many thieves (especially of jewelry) exhibit boldness: they’ll continue wearing or flaunt the stolen item, sometimes even in the presence of the victim. The psychology is that they’re signaling power: “I got away with it.”
3. Overly helpful/overcompensating behavior. In psychology, someone who’s trying to mask guilt often overcorrects — offering to help search obsessively, volunteering extra details, always being the one to bring it up. That “helpfulness” can be a guilt indicator.
4. Mismatch in ring pedigree. The kind of knockoff you find on Amazon tends to mimic iconic, mass-produced engagement rings (like classic cuts, solitaire settings, popular styles — think Princess Di/Kate Middleton’s engagement ring); but Lisa’s ring was from a jeweler, likely custom or high-end — not something you’ll find as a convincing mass-market dupe. So Monica’s “Amazon troll ring” story doesn’t align with the uniqueness Lisa describes. Especially since the ring is already at least a decade old, and not a new fashion.
5. Deflection and gaslighting. Claiming “oh, it was fake/I was trolling you” shifts the blame back onto Lisa (making her question her perception) — classic deflection tactics.
Why I Think Monica Did Steal the Ring: My Argument
Putting it all together, here’s why my opinion that Monica took the ring is defensible — arguably more plausible than her explanation:
The opportunity was there: Monica was part of the bathroom search, in proximity to where the ring went missing. She could have found it, and decided to keep it.
She had motive (as a new cast member, she might use drama) and incentive (earning screen time, sowing distrust). Maybe she intended to play the hero with finding the ring, but then decided she wanted to keep it instead — she clearly doesn’t have anything worth that amount of money, probably not even her car.
The BravoCon ring stunt (if real) is brazen — and brazen can be a trait of someone unrepentant. Ted Bundy was said to have given jewelry from his victims to his girlfriend, getting a sort of thrill reliving the killings when he would see his girlfriend wearing the jewelry pieces.
The “fake Amazon ring” excuse is illogical given the uniqueness of Lisa’s piece.
Behavioral tells from studied psychological traits of criminals: overhelping, repeated references to the ring search, reacting defensively — all fit profiles of someone under psychological pressure and guilt. Wearing the ring itself.
In short, Monica’s narrative has holes. Her public denial is expected; her stunt at BravoCon (if accurate) is too theatrical. The more parsimonious explanation — the one that binds motive, opportunity, and her behavior — is that she did have the ring (or took it) and is now trying to rewrite reality.
NYC GAL OUT ♡ Pod 
Leave a comment