Gwyneth Paltrow court case

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No it’s not unless you’re an easily seduced ignoramus

Then I guess that's what most jurors are or else they wouldn't do it. Tell us what you thought of it today since I'm sure you listened very intently.

I don’t have time to listen to that crap. I’ve learnt everything I needed to from NYT and listening to the 3 min snippet of her testimony

It's obvious you know nothing about this.

[Anonymous]

Is it just one crazy ski expert posting in here?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What happened today?!

Oh he's traveled the world, doing all kinds of active things (white water rafting and so on), since the incident. Drank heavily right after the accident, scored high on narcissism and low on empathy in his neuropsych eval etc. His doc said he tends to overreport symptoms. Reiterated his daughters saying he's always been aggressive and reactive.

That and the medical experts described his lengthy history, predating the collision, not lining up with his claims, and indicative of dementia. He’s not going to be able to blame it all on the ski accident.

Agree that all of this basically demolished his credibility, which wasn't great to begin with. She's deeply annoying but she comes across far better in this case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I find it strange and upsetting that as a physician you rely so strongly on peer reviewed literature that you cannot comprehend another cause/outcome. I am thankful to not be your patient. Surely you know that ailments may present differently in different people. Women are more often misdiagnosed, and you seem to have it out for Gwyneth.

Recollections and opinions may vary...

[Anonymous]

Snotty Hollywood actress who thinks she can con the flyover rubes on the jury. Amber Heard vibes from GP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Snotty Hollywood actress who thinks she can con the flyover rubes on the jury. Amber Heard vibes from GP

I guess you are easily conned then. I doubt the jury will be as easily conned by the international jet setting grifter and his frivolous lawsuit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Snotty Hollywood actress who thinks she can con the flyover rubes on the jury. Amber Heard vibes from GP

Mind numbing stupidity. Every law talking head that was on JD’s side while watching his trial is watching hers as well and believes she is far more credible.

You don’t actually NEED to share your opinion, you know. Especially as you clearly are spouting off despite not following at all. The world will rotate without your two cents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No it’s not unless you’re an easily seduced ignoramus

Then I guess that's what most jurors are or else they wouldn't do it. Tell us what you thought of it today since I'm sure you listened very intently.

I don’t have time to listen to that crap. I’ve learnt everything I needed to from NYT and listening to the 3 min snippet of her testimony

It's obvious you know nothing about this.

Sorry I can’t lose a half day of skiing watching GP lie

[Anonymous]

I still don't know who hit who and how and I don't think either of them are telling the truth but the guy clearly wasn't seriously injured from it so he should pay for bringing such a frivolous case. They crashed somehow and life went on for both of them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No it’s not unless you’re an easily seduced ignoramus

Then I guess that's what most jurors are or else they wouldn't do it. Tell us what you thought of it today since I'm sure you listened very intently.

I don’t have time to listen to that crap. I’ve learnt everything I needed to from NYT and listening to the 3 min snippet of her testimony

It's obvious you know nothing about this.

Sorry I can’t lose a half day of skiing watching GP lie

Weird that you're so obsessed with someone you have no knowledge of.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I still don't know who hit who and how and I don't think either of them are telling the truth but the guy clearly wasn't seriously injured from it so he should pay for bringing such a frivolous case. They crashed somehow and life went on for both of them.

Yeah, did he really think his adventure travel wouldn't come out? What a liar.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11919117/Retired-optometrist-suing-Gwyneth-Paltrow-claiming-recluse-crash-shown-travelling.html

[Anonymous]

I think it's possible/probable they each think they are telling the truth. My husband and I witnessed an accident once and I was shocked to realize in the retelling, we both felt absolutely certain how the accident happened, and our stories conflicted with each other. My FIL was a DA and he always said witnesses are unreliable. I think the whole thing should be thrown out of court.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I still don't know who hit who and how and I don't think either of them are telling the truth but the guy clearly wasn't seriously injured from it so he should pay for bringing such a frivolous case. They crashed somehow and life went on for both of them.

Yeah, did he really think his adventure travel wouldn't come out? What a liar.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11919117/Retired-optometrist-suing-Gwyneth-Paltrow-claiming-recluse-crash-shown-travelling.html

It's a crazy amount of travel and activity for someone who said he was a recluse now and whose daughter said she thought he would be drooling in a corner. But riding camels, parasailing, hiking, golfing, skiing, etc etc were part of his "therapy" and acts as if he just didn't enjoy it as much as he might have. He also had another slip and fall and was knocked out for 45 minutes since 2016.

This guy is a narcissist which is why he's suing. He felt insulted and ignored. That's pretty much what it boils down to. Also why he kept his FB profile public so that his photos were easily found.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Snotty Hollywood actress who thinks she can con the flyover rubes on the jury. Amber Heard vibes from GP

omg, nothing like Amber Heard! I am not a Gwyneth fan at all but Amber Heard is a disgusting, psychopathic liar. She was setting up JD for years.

This case against GP is ridiculous and she has the right to defend herself. Sanderson is more like Amber Heard with his lies and multiple personalities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Snotty Hollywood actress who thinks she can con the flyover rubes on the jury. Amber Heard vibes from GP

I think your hatred of GP is blinding you to the story. You are not giving her a fair chance and are biased so whatever you say cannot be taken seriously.