Gwyneth Paltrow court case

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But if she's so tiny, wouldn't she be injured if he hit her?

Wouldn't she also be injured if she hit him? A collision is a collision. Weird that one walked away and one didn't, unless you consider he was a very old man and it doesn't take much to break a hip or bone. He supposedly had a list of ailments prior to the accident and is blind in one eye. Maybe he never even saw her.

Quite possibly, but in the many collisions I have seen and heard of, the downhill unsuspecting skier is the one who is more often injured. The injury is often not from the first collision, but being knocked to the ground/having your equipment jab into you. The uphill skier's momentum gets stopped by the collision. The downhill skier gets propelled down the slope and falls awkwardly on their skis/poles. Imagine a child on a swing hits you from behind. Who is more likely injured?

Also, usually the person who is struck from behind doesn't take off down the mountain after the collision. They wait around to get over their shock and to get the skier at fault's info.

Was he wearing a helmet? I would guess not. Seems strange to engage in a dangerous sport at such an age without the proper gear to be safe.

Why would you guess not? Helmets are protective, but they can't completely prevent concussions. In fact, head injury statistics from snowsports haven't changed much since helmets were introduced, perhaps because people have a false sense of protection. And often they aren't fastened correctly and come off in collisions. Keep that strap tight everyone!

I haven't heard anyone say he was wearing a helmet. Have you?

Sanderson's lawyer says in his opening statement "Sanderson's helmeted head" to make the point he was wearing a helmet. Why are people discussing this case without even watching?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But if she's so tiny, wouldn't she be injured if he hit her?

Wouldn't she also be injured if she hit him? A collision is a collision. Weird that one walked away and one didn't, unless you consider he was a very old man and it doesn't take much to break a hip or bone. He supposedly had a list of ailments prior to the accident and is blind in one eye. Maybe he never even saw her.

Quite possibly, but in the many collisions I have seen and heard of, the downhill unsuspecting skier is the one who is more often injured. The injury is often not from the first collision, but being knocked to the ground/having your equipment jab into you. The uphill skier's momentum gets stopped by the collision. The downhill skier gets propelled down the slope and falls awkwardly on their skis/poles. Imagine a child on a swing hits you from behind. Who is more likely injured?

Also, usually the person who is struck from behind doesn't take off down the mountain after the collision. They wait around to get over their shock and to get the skier at fault's info.

Was he wearing a helmet? I would guess not. Seems strange to engage in a dangerous sport at such an age without the proper gear to be safe.

Why would you guess not? Helmets are protective, but they can't completely prevent concussions. In fact, head injury statistics from snowsports haven't changed much since helmets were introduced, perhaps because people have a false sense of protection. And often they aren't fastened correctly and come off in collisions. Keep that strap tight everyone!

I haven't heard anyone say he was wearing a helmet. Have you?

Sanderson's lawyer says in his opening statement "Sanderson's helmeted head" to make the point he was wearing a helmet. Why are people discussing this case without even watching?

Who has time to watch this? It’s not that serious.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But if she's so tiny, wouldn't she be injured if he hit her?

Wouldn't she also be injured if she hit him? A collision is a collision. Weird that one walked away and one didn't, unless you consider he was a very old man and it doesn't take much to break a hip or bone. He supposedly had a list of ailments prior to the accident and is blind in one eye. Maybe he never even saw her.

Quite possibly, but in the many collisions I have seen and heard of, the downhill unsuspecting skier is the one who is more often injured. The injury is often not from the first collision, but being knocked to the ground/having your equipment jab into you. The uphill skier's momentum gets stopped by the collision. The downhill skier gets propelled down the slope and falls awkwardly on their skis/poles. Imagine a child on a swing hits you from behind. Who is more likely injured?

Also, usually the person who is struck from behind doesn't take off down the mountain after the collision. They wait around to get over their shock and to get the skier at fault's info.

Have you been skiing anytime in the past 10 years? 99.9% of people wear helmets. My operating assumption would have been he was wearing one.

Was he wearing a helmet? I would guess not. Seems strange to engage in a dangerous sport at such an age without the proper gear to be safe.

Why would you guess not? Helmets are protective, but they can't completely prevent concussions. In fact, head injury statistics from snowsports haven't changed much since helmets were introduced, perhaps because people have a false sense of protection. And often they aren't fastened correctly and come off in collisions. Keep that strap tight everyone!

I haven't heard anyone say he was wearing a helmet. Have you?

^ to add I would think his team would say something like "but for his helmet things could have been worse or deadly" so it leads me to conclude he was not like wearing a helmet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:haha, that is a pretty magnolia though

Yuck. Are these supposedly fashionable or is she trying to look like a feeble old lady for the jury (and not the filthy rich entitled Hollywood wacko she is)?

She is a filthy rich entitled Hollywood wacko who's always fashionable. But you already knew that.

That model is half her age and can sorta pull off the ugly ironic Jeff Dahmer thing. When these old bags try to dress hip and fashionable they just look totally ridiculous. See also SJP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:haha, that is a pretty magnolia though

Yuck. Are these supposedly fashionable or is she trying to look like a feeble old lady for the jury (and not the filthy rich entitled Hollywood wacko she is)?

She is a filthy rich entitled Hollywood wacko who's always fashionable. But you already knew that.

Are we supposed to be impressed ? Lol.

[Anonymous]

What is with the weird obsession with Jeffrey Dahmer. Have you all really never heard of aviators?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What is with the weird obsession with Jeffrey Dahmer. Have you all really never heard of aviators?

I was also wondering why people not saying aviator glasses and assume the name Jeffrey Dahmer is thrown in for dramatic effect.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Why do you think he was uphill? If she ended up on top of him, she was likely uphill.

In my many years of skiing, once I was hit from behind by a young man. It came out of nowhere for me and though he wasn't going fast enough to injure me, it hurt a lot, and I needed to take a moment to regroup while the guy apologized profusely. The same thing happened to my 11 year old daughter this season, she was hit from behind, she had the wind knocked out of her and a nasty bruise on her cheek.

It's basically he-said she-said about who was uphill. But I tend to believe him because

- he was the more injured one while she got up skied away after a few minutes. IME the uphill skier are the ones who feel less impact and get less hurt.
- it is stated that she ended up on top of him - again, more likely if she was uphill.
- his friend stated she was uphill, but his friend may be biased. The ski instructors said he was uphill, but they are say they didn't see it happen and they are also biased towards their client. So these eyewitness accounts cancel each other out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is with the weird obsession with Jeffrey Dahmer. Have you all really never heard of aviators?

I was also wondering why people not saying aviator glasses and assume the name Jeffrey Dahmer is thrown in for dramatic effect.

Because it’s obvi not a coincidence that his movie was hyper viral and now this is a designer trend? And because GP is way too old to still be trying to keep up with this fake ugly fashion trend. When you’re old you just look…ugly. When you’re young and beautiful it’s ironic and you’re still gorgeous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Why do you think he was uphill? If she ended up on top of him, she was likely uphill.

In my many years of skiing, once I was hit from behind by a young man. It came out of nowhere for me and though he wasn't going fast enough to injure me, it hurt a lot, and I needed to take a moment to regroup while the guy apologized profusely. The same thing happened to my 11 year old daughter this season, she was hit from behind, she had the wind knocked out of her and a nasty bruise on her cheek.

It's basically he-said she-said about who was uphill. But I tend to believe him because

- he was the more injured one while she got up skied away after a few minutes. IME the uphill skier are the ones who feel less impact and get less hurt.
- it is stated that she ended up on top of him - again, more likely if she was uphill.
- his friend stated she was uphill, but his friend may be biased. The ski instructors said he was uphill, but they are say they didn't see it happen and they are also biased towards their client. So these eyewitness accounts cancel each other out.

I'm pp who said something similar - that the downhill skier is usually the one that gets more injured and used the analogy of a kid on a swing. Imagine you are on a soccer field and a player from behind runs into you and takes you by surprise. Both of you fall, but you are likely to get more injured. The runner's fall will be buffered by the person who is struck, which is you. Now imagine the same situation, but now you are being shoved down a hill onto a hard groomed trail. I remember that ski season because I heard the lifties talking about this incident weeks after the fact. That April was really dry and the trails were all groomed and hard - no fresh snow. It was also the morning, which would have been the icier part of the day.

[Anonymous]

I loathe GP but this feels like a shakedown

[Anonymous]

Gwyneth on the stand now.

[Anonymous]

Pro seems like a rookie.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:haha, that is a pretty magnolia though

Yuck. Are these supposedly fashionable or is she trying to look like a feeble old lady for the jury (and not the filthy rich entitled Hollywood wacko she is)?

She is a filthy rich entitled Hollywood wacko who's always fashionable. But you already knew that.

Are we supposed to be impressed ? Lol.

Are you feeling excluded again because you still don't know what's fashionable?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:haha, that is a pretty magnolia though

Yuck. Are these supposedly fashionable or is she trying to look like a feeble old lady for the jury (and not the filthy rich entitled Hollywood wacko she is)?

She is a filthy rich entitled Hollywood wacko who's always fashionable. But you already knew that.

That model is half her age and can sorta pull off the ugly ironic Jeff Dahmer thing. When these old bags try to dress hip and fashionable they just look totally ridiculous. See also SJP

I think I heard that argument when big plastic frames became hip. 15+ years ago.