Gwyneth Paltrow court case

[Anonymous]

And yet his friend was quoted as saying that someone came up to him and said “Your friend just took out Gwyneth Paltrow.”

If that’s the exact quote, they better have a good explanation for it, because it doesn’t sound in his favor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In the first day of trial the plaintiff's witness claims he heard a scream and looked over and THEN saw Paltrow plow into Sanderson - but it makes no sense to me that you hear a scream and then look over to see the accident take place a couple seconds AFTER the scream?! Makes zero sense to me

I can picture a woman screaming as she realizes she's going to ski into someone.

Or screaming realizing she's about to be hit.

PP here. Either could be true. But was she turned around to see?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In the first day of trial the plaintiff's witness claims he heard a scream and looked over and THEN saw Paltrow plow into Sanderson - but it makes no sense to me that you hear a scream and then look over to see the accident take place a couple seconds AFTER the scream?! Makes zero sense to me

Really? You can’t imagine a scenario where someone yells a warning before a crash? I did it skiing on Thursday. ‘Hey on your right!’ Said loudly to get their attention through a helmet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm going against popular opinion but I believe the guy. If she ended up on top of him, that really can only happen if she was uphill from him.

The instructor and guides who were with Paltrow's family came upon the accident after it had happened and they were hired by GP so not only did they not see what happened but they are influenced to be on the side of the person paying them.

I have been hit by a skier on a green, and it's really freaking painful. I'm a really good skier but when you are hit from behind you are helpless. And the person that is hit is usually the person that is more hurt than the person at fault -- GP was fine and the plaintiff is the one that had a serious concussion.

I was wondering about the physics of all this. Given that he is injured and she was uninjured did that tell us anything? The age difference could contribute to that too.

[Anonymous]

In the first day of trial the plaintiff's witness claims he heard a scream and looked over and THEN saw Paltrow plow into Sanderson - but it makes no sense to me that you hear a scream and then look over to see the accident take place a couple seconds AFTER the scream?! Makes zero sense to me


Really? You can’t imagine a scenario where someone yells a warning before a crash? I did it skiing on Thursday. ‘Hey on your right!’ Said loudly to get their attention through a helmet.

In this case, the plaintiff is saying that Paltrow was not looking where she was going - basically skied into the guy looking somewhere else so she wouldn't scream until she hits him. If the scream is from Sanderson and he is downhill and hit in the back, he also wouldn't scream until the collision...

[Anonymous]

Ive been seeing lots of interviews, videos, etc and she only weighs like 100 lbs...it'd be like a feather hitting you?? She only eats soup.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
In the first day of trial the plaintiff's witness claims he heard a scream and looked over and THEN saw Paltrow plow into Sanderson - but it makes no sense to me that you hear a scream and then look over to see the accident take place a couple seconds AFTER the scream?! Makes zero sense to me


Really? You can’t imagine a scenario where someone yells a warning before a crash? I did it skiing on Thursday. ‘Hey on your right!’ Said loudly to get their attention through a helmet.

In this case, the plaintiff is saying that Paltrow was not looking where she was going - basically skied into the guy looking somewhere else so she wouldn't scream until she hits him. If the scream is from Sanderson and he is downhill and hit in the back, he also wouldn't scream until the collision...

I would scream if someone was about to hit me but would scream "look out!" if I was about to hit someone. Also the injuries suggest a side impact, not hit from behind.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:haha, that is a pretty magnolia though

I wouldn’t give her a passing glance if I saw her on the street. Goop products must not be very effective.

Don’t you think her attorneys advised her not to look like a rich, glamorous celebrity?

Yeah, this is a common tactic. Look at how Laurie Laughlin looked in court. Same with Molly Shattuck. Apparently glasses and no makeup makes you look more relatable and "poor me."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
In the first day of trial the plaintiff's witness claims he heard a scream and looked over and THEN saw Paltrow plow into Sanderson - but it makes no sense to me that you hear a scream and then look over to see the accident take place a couple seconds AFTER the scream?! Makes zero sense to me


Really? You can’t imagine a scenario where someone yells a warning before a crash? I did it skiing on Thursday. ‘Hey on your right!’ Said loudly to get their attention through a helmet.

In this case, the plaintiff is saying that Paltrow was not looking where she was going - basically skied into the guy looking somewhere else so she wouldn't scream until she hits him. If the scream is from Sanderson and he is downhill and hit in the back, he also wouldn't scream until the collision...

I would scream if someone was about to hit me but would scream "look out!" if I was about to hit someone. Also the injuries suggest a side impact, not hit from behind.

But the story is that neither saw the impact coming...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
In the first day of trial the plaintiff's witness claims he heard a scream and looked over and THEN saw Paltrow plow into Sanderson - but it makes no sense to me that you hear a scream and then look over to see the accident take place a couple seconds AFTER the scream?! Makes zero sense to me


Really? You can’t imagine a scenario where someone yells a warning before a crash? I did it skiing on Thursday. ‘Hey on your right!’ Said loudly to get their attention through a helmet.

In this case, the plaintiff is saying that Paltrow was not looking where she was going - basically skied into the guy looking somewhere else so she wouldn't scream until she hits him. If the scream is from Sanderson and he is downhill and hit in the back, he also wouldn't scream until the collision...

I would scream if someone was about to hit me but would scream "look out!" if I was about to hit someone. Also the injuries suggest a side impact, not hit from behind.

But the story is that neither saw the impact coming...

So? Maybe the witness is unreliable?

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
In the first day of trial the plaintiff's witness claims he heard a scream and looked over and THEN saw Paltrow plow into Sanderson - but it makes no sense to me that you hear a scream and then look over to see the accident take place a couple seconds AFTER the scream?! Makes zero sense to me


Really? You can’t imagine a scenario where someone yells a warning before a crash? I did it skiing on Thursday. ‘Hey on your right!’ Said loudly to get their attention through a helmet.

In this case, the plaintiff is saying that Paltrow was not looking where she was going - basically skied into the guy looking somewhere else so she wouldn't scream until she hits him. If the scream is from Sanderson and he is downhill and hit in the back, he also wouldn't scream until the collision...

I would scream if someone was about to hit me but would scream "look out!" if I was about to hit someone. Also the injuries suggest a side impact, not hit from behind.

But the story is that neither saw the impact coming...

So? Maybe the witness is unreliable?

That's *his* witness. Without that guy, there are zero other people saying that GP hit him. Presenting a witness that makes up a lie for why they witnessed a crash is... not great.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
In the first day of trial the plaintiff's witness claims he heard a scream and looked over and THEN saw Paltrow plow into Sanderson - but it makes no sense to me that you hear a scream and then look over to see the accident take place a couple seconds AFTER the scream?! Makes zero sense to me


Really? You can’t imagine a scenario where someone yells a warning before a crash? I did it skiing on Thursday. ‘Hey on your right!’ Said loudly to get their attention through a helmet.

In this case, the plaintiff is saying that Paltrow was not looking where she was going - basically skied into the guy looking somewhere else so she wouldn't scream until she hits him. If the scream is from Sanderson and he is downhill and hit in the back, he also wouldn't scream until the collision...

I would scream if someone was about to hit me but would scream "look out!" if I was about to hit someone. Also the injuries suggest a side impact, not hit from behind.

But the story is that neither saw the impact coming...

So? Maybe the witness is unreliable?

I think she probably stopped unexpectedly to check on her kids and he, not expecting the stop, hit her. His story doesn't make sense to me. And, yes, age and angle of the hit could explain the difference in injuries.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
In the first day of trial the plaintiff's witness claims he heard a scream and looked over and THEN saw Paltrow plow into Sanderson - but it makes no sense to me that you hear a scream and then look over to see the accident take place a couple seconds AFTER the scream?! Makes zero sense to me


Really? You can’t imagine a scenario where someone yells a warning before a crash? I did it skiing on Thursday. ‘Hey on your right!’ Said loudly to get their attention through a helmet.

In this case, the plaintiff is saying that Paltrow was not looking where she was going - basically skied into the guy looking somewhere else so she wouldn't scream until she hits him. If the scream is from Sanderson and he is downhill and hit in the back, he also wouldn't scream until the collision...

I would scream if someone was about to hit me but would scream "look out!" if I was about to hit someone. Also the injuries suggest a side impact, not hit from behind.

But the story is that neither saw the impact coming...

So? Maybe the witness is unreliable?

I think she probably stopped unexpectedly to check on her kids and he, not expecting the stop, hit her. His story doesn't make sense to me. And, yes, age and angle of the hit could explain the difference in injuries.

The problem is he has to prove that this happened. He's presenting his case, then she gets her chance and it comes down to what the jury believes. The witness may have a vested interest in pointing the finger at her. The jury might be able to see through that. Sometimes there are just accidents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
In the first day of trial the plaintiff's witness claims he heard a scream and looked over and THEN saw Paltrow plow into Sanderson - but it makes no sense to me that you hear a scream and then look over to see the accident take place a couple seconds AFTER the scream?! Makes zero sense to me


Really? You can’t imagine a scenario where someone yells a warning before a crash? I did it skiing on Thursday. ‘Hey on your right!’ Said loudly to get their attention through a helmet.

In this case, the plaintiff is saying that Paltrow was not looking where she was going - basically skied into the guy looking somewhere else so she wouldn't scream until she hits him. If the scream is from Sanderson and he is downhill and hit in the back, he also wouldn't scream until the collision...

I would scream if someone was about to hit me but would scream "look out!" if I was about to hit someone. Also the injuries suggest a side impact, not hit from behind.

But the story is that neither saw the impact coming...

So? Maybe the witness is unreliable?

I think she probably stopped unexpectedly to check on her kids and he, not expecting the stop, hit her. His story doesn't make sense to me. And, yes, age and angle of the hit could explain the difference in injuries.

The problem is he has to prove that this happened. He's presenting his case, then she gets her chance and it comes down to what the jury believes. The witness may have a vested interest in pointing the finger at her. The jury might be able to see through that. Sometimes there are just accidents.

It will come down to who was uphill, and it seems most likely it was him.