Gwyneth Paltrow court case

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I didn't buy it at all. She thought she was being sexually assaulted? The guy was groaning because he was hurt. She's trying that doe eyed thing that worked better when she was 20.

Oh please. She said she was trying to make sense of what happened and something weird and sexual passed through her head for a split second. She did NOT state that she thought she was sexually assaulted.

Seriously?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gwyneth did well on the stand. I believe her.

She’s an actress.

So what? She’s not that great of an actress,

Well she's won an Oscar, has acted in dozens of films and TV shows, and has extensive public speaking and interview experience -- so I think it's fair to say that she's quite skilled at presenting herself convincingly when questioned in front of cameras. She also knows how to turn on star power.

That's not to say she is or is not at fault here. I don't know. But i wouldn't expect anything less than her appearing poised, in command, and fairly credible while on the stand. Her performance under questioning is just one of many factors to weigh.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I didn't buy it at all. She thought she was being sexually assaulted? The guy was groaning because he was hurt. She's trying that doe eyed thing that worked better when she was 20.

Oh please. She said she was trying to make sense of what happened and something weird and sexual passed through her head for a split second. She did NOT state that she thought she was sexually assaulted.

She's ridiculous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I didn't buy it at all. She thought she was being sexually assaulted? The guy was groaning because he was hurt. She's trying that doe eyed thing that worked better when she was 20.

Oh please. She said she was trying to make sense of what happened and something weird and sexual passed through her head for a split second. She did NOT state that she thought she was sexually assaulted.

She's ridiculous.

As are you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I didn't buy it at all. She thought she was being sexually assaulted? The guy was groaning because he was hurt. She's trying that doe eyed thing that worked better when she was 20.

Oh please. She said she was trying to make sense of what happened and something weird and sexual passed through her head for a split second. She did NOT state that she thought she was sexually assaulted.

She's ridiculous.

+1 I've never heard of anyone thinking of something sexual after an accident, even for a nano second. She worked hard to come up with that thought.

[Anonymous]

this

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gwyneth did well on the stand. I believe her.

She’s an actress.

I guess by your scintillating logic actors and actresses should never have any say in legal proceedings because they are by their very nature unbelievable. Wow. What insight. Thank you for your invaluable contribution.

Why is this triggering you so much?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I didn't buy it at all. She thought she was being sexually assaulted? The guy was groaning because he was hurt. She's trying that doe eyed thing that worked better when she was 20.

Oh please. She said she was trying to make sense of what happened and something weird and sexual passed through her head for a split second. She did NOT state that she thought she was sexually assaulted.

She sounds like a mental case.

[Anonymous]

Would he have sued a kid or a teenager or some regular non celebrity?

I ski but am actually really scared of getting crashed into by someone careless. And I've definitely had minor collisions on the slopes. But I never once thought suing might be an option.

[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.

If he was uphill and crashed into her from behind, it's very possible for her to have fallen backwards and onto him (I'm picturing her losing her balance and her skis sliding forward and her falling backwards. Has happened to me).

[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.

If this is the case, then he's at fault. It's not cool to stop suddenly, but it's always the uphill skier's responsibility to avoid whatever is in front of them. It's the skier's responsibility to be able to stop when necessary, turn, ski around obstacles and to leave enough room to do so.

He took a risk when he went skiing and it doesn't sound like she was reckless or out of control.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gwyneth did well on the stand. I believe her.

She’s an actress.

That’s a stretch. She’s an old bag; a washed up Harvey girl.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I didn't buy it at all. She thought she was being sexually assaulted? The guy was groaning because he was hurt. She's trying that doe eyed thing that worked better when she was 20.

This whole thing appears to be her milking this as a publicity stunt. Desperate washed up actress.

She's being sued by him. So how can this be a stunt of her making? She doesn't have to settle with every clown who tries to shake her down.

Because paying him is cheaper than her lawyers? Milking this for Page Six and tabloids like a desperate aging grifter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I didn't buy it at all. She thought she was being sexually assaulted? The guy was groaning because he was hurt. She's trying that doe eyed thing that worked better when she was 20.

This whole thing appears to be her milking this as a publicity stunt. Desperate washed up actress.

She's being sued by him. So how can this be a stunt of her making? She doesn't have to settle with every clown who tries to shake her down.

Because paying him is cheaper than her lawyers? Milking this for Page Six and tabloids like a desperate aging grifter.

She's suing him for $1 and attorney's fees. She must feel she has a good case. Do you not like her or something? It's hard to tell.....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I didn't buy it at all. She thought she was being sexually assaulted? The guy was groaning because he was hurt. She's trying that doe eyed thing that worked better when she was 20.

Oh please. She said she was trying to make sense of what happened and something weird and sexual passed through her head for a split second. She did NOT state that she thought she was sexually assaulted.

She sounds like a mental case.

+1 yep...spreadeagled on the ground and thinking something sexual??