Gwyneth Paltrow court case

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Skier and a physician, but never seen an aftermath of a brain injury?!

Sorry, ditto here, but his symptoms are consistent with the injury he sustained and her story is consistent with lying her gassed a## off.

Nobody disputes an accident but he’s just not believable. He’s been caught in multiple lies. His memory is shot.

+1. He and his lawyer thought they were going to get a big payday. Now that it doesn't look likely, he is just making a fool out of himself.

He has brain damage. What’s your excuse?

So his recall is certainly suspect.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think a lot of posters are projecting their feelings about GP into their assumptions about what happened without hearing all the facts, just pieces.

She is so annoying but that doesn’t mean that she caused the accident in this case. His story does not add up either.

I also think it’s insulting to the ski instructors to imply they would participate in a coverup/lie to back her up since she was the paying customer. Didn’t this whole thing start years after tge accident? She wouldn’t have been a client at that point. And I think most instructors take safety very seriously and wouldn’t lie just because someone is famous.

+1 Ski instructors do not deserve to have their integrity questioned based on one incident.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ask people who worked for goop and quit what she’s really like

My BIL, a longtime business manager to the wealthy and famous in LA, says a lot of stars are difficult to work for but it doesn't mean they are liars.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't think Paltrow was drunk or skiing with her ski's 18" apart - someone came up behind her maybe trying to stop but couldn't - hence the noises she heard behind her. His skis then came onto and between hers causing her to widen her stance. She then loses her balance and falls - and he trips up and goes flying to land on his chest laying head down the slope causing a concussion and rib fractures. When your skis get tangled up, the more experienced and downhill skier who is not going very fast snd is in control can fall easier and the fast moving out of control one goes flying. I'm a skier and a physician. I can picture GP's story. I've skied at DV with my 3 kids. They each had their own instructor - but I did not ski with them. I'm not sure where everyone is seeing there were 6 instructors. There were just instructors for each kid - and the instructors were watching the kids. GP didn't have or need an instructor. She has stuck to her story. He seems to be unreliable, admitting that he "often misspeaks"! I hope no one is found at fault - accidents like this can happen and no one was terribly negligent. Waste of time and money - the whole case and counter suit.

Great, since you are a physician, I’m sure you believe in ebm and believe peer reviewed literature over anecdotal evidence. Refer back to the poster who posted a link to an article that studied skier-skier collisions and concluded that the striking skier is less likely to be injured than the struck skier

https://www.injuryjournal.com/article/S0020-1383(22)00356-4/pdf

I’m also a physician and a skier, and in the case of a dispute between two skiers where one is injured and the other is not, the injured one is the one most likely struck from behind. I also have skied in deer valley with my kids and I actually live 3 miles away. The word around town is that initially the accident seemed minor. I’m sure as an experienced physician you know that sometimes people underestimate their injuries and claim they feel fine even though they are not. The ski instructor identified GP to the plaintiff as if to say, hey, lucky you, you were in a collision with a celebrity. This is why there is a clear protocol to stop, exchange information, wait for ski patrol to arrive before skiing away. The instructors should know this protocol but they are not responsible for enforcing it. Had this been followed, we would know more. There is a reason why the instructor’s scenario was animated, but GP’s was not. They probably tried, but couldn’t make it seem plausible.

You are right, it’s a waste of time now since there is no additional information beyond one witness. Had that witness been in GP’s favor, I’m sure people would have believed him, but apparently not when he is in the other guy’s favor. The only part that makes him more plausible is that he is on record telling people at the time of the accident that GP was the one who hit him.

[Anonymous]

I completely agree. Also a skier and a Dr. If she wasn’t lying she would have called her instructor who was uphill and whose job was to watch her, to testify. Ski instructors have integrity. Which is why one one is willing to testify, that he didn’t see anything

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I completely agree. Also a skier and a Dr. If she wasn’t lying she would have called her instructor who was uphill and whose job was to watch her, to testify. Ski instructors have integrity. Which is why one one is willing to testify, that he didn’t see anything

Why didn't the plaintiff subpoena that instructor? Who is the one unwilling to testify? The other instructor in the area was Apple's instructor. Who is the mystery instruction being alluded to here?

[Anonymous]

Because it’s a risk, that they would be a hostile witness or even lie. That is a huge gamble that most lawyers would never take.

Why don’t you ask why of 11 people, 6 of them instructors, only 1 is testifying for GP and that one says he didn’t see it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Because it’s a risk, that they would be a hostile witness or even lie. That is a huge gamble that most lawyers would never take.

Why don’t you ask why of 11 people, 6 of them instructors, only 1 is testifying for GP and that one says he didn’t see it?

Who said there were 6 instructors there at the time?

[Anonymous]

OMG, it’s not a mystery. GP paid for 6 instructors/guides.
Hers was a woman, the woman who was uphill and whose job was to watch GP ski, she’s the one who stopped by Terry on the way down and identified GP. Despite saying something like you took out GP she’s unwilling to repeat it on the stand. That plus 18”’ = hogwash.

Meanwhile Terry has an eyewitness and their messages are consistent in the aftermath well before any lawsuit. You just don’t want to trust the little frumpy guy

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because it’s a risk, that they would be a hostile witness or even lie. That is a huge gamble that most lawyers would never take.

Why don’t you ask why of 11 people, 6 of them instructors, only 1 is testifying for GP and that one says he didn’t see it?

Who said there were 6 instructors there at the time?

Not there but all in all. GP did. On the stand. There would have been at least 3. 2 for the kids and 1 for GP.
It’s weird that the GP side won’t identify them and say exactly where they were. Why?! Please give me one reason other than thru are unwilling to lie for her

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because it’s a risk, that they would be a hostile witness or even lie. That is a huge gamble that most lawyers would never take.

Why don’t you ask why of 11 people, 6 of them instructors, only 1 is testifying for GP and that one says he didn’t see it?

Who said there were 6 instructors there at the time?

Not there but all in all. GP did. On the stand. There would have been at least 3. 2 for the kids and 1 for GP.
It’s weird that the GP side won’t identify them and say exactly where they were. Why?! Please give me one reason other than thru are unwilling to lie for her

I thought she said she had a ski lesson that day. Not an all day instruction. The receipt produced listed the cost of the half and full day lessons for the kids. Her name was not on it.

[Anonymous]

They both seem like clowns

[Anonymous]

Half is morning before lunch. The woman was there. She was uphill. She’s not mentioned or testifying

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Half is morning before lunch. The woman was there. She was uphill. She’s not mentioned or testifying

Her name is Oakes. She's Apple's instructor. This isn't that hard to follow.

[Anonymous]

Then there’s a 3rd guide.

List the six and where they were.
Was Oakes up hill?