Gwyneth Paltrow court case

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I’m glad you know her intimately. At least you’re well ozonated

Her story is implausible. Three if not more ski/dr on here alone agreed

The guy traveling and getting on with life in the intervening years is normal. He’s not needing to be a monk. His story holds. He had the only eye witness.

Are they both nuts? Yes

[Anonymous]

There’s an interesting divide in the opinions.

Younger, TikTok generation, skewing urban, think she’s lying

Older, FB generation, skewing suburban, think he’s lying

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There’s an interesting divide in the opinions.

Younger, TikTok generation, skewing urban, think she’s lying

Older, FB generation, skewing suburban, think he’s lying

Which group do you think the jury belongs to?

[Anonymous]

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

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There’s an interesting divide in the opinions.

Younger, TikTok generation, skewing urban, think she’s lying

Older, FB generation, skewing suburban, think he’s lying

Which group do you think the jury belongs to?

I don’t care. But I know which the rabid housewives on here belong to, I just don’t understand why. I think many people just have that mob mentality and master serving mindset. It’s weird but it’s human nature.

Don’t believe the opinions of the ski experts and physicians. It’s fine. But no need to be abusive over people bringing a voice of reason into your echo chamber.

If GP was telling the truth she’d have eye witnesses willing to testify. She doesn’t. It’s not possible for one of them to not have seen it. That’s why they are not testifying so as not to perjure themselves. Her version is implausible and there’s no evidence to support it. Enough said.

I don’t care about GP, I care about the skiing rules applying to all equally. Or the slopes will become a nightmare

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+100

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1
She’s not the one who frivolously sued. She is merely defending herself, per the law. This case would never have happened if the accuser hadn’t counted on making bank off of her.

[Anonymous]

I don’t get this entire case. Everyone is on a ski slope. News flash - people fall down! Do you really believe 80 pound Gwyneth was hot rod-ding down the hill?

[Anonymous]

The Today Show is covering this and apparently he went to 15 countries on insane trips in the years since the accident. The legal team showed him ziplining in Costa Rica, white water rafting, etc.

Hard to believe he really needs 300K of GP's $$$ to heal.

[Anonymous]

Terry Sanderson is ridiculous, what a waste of everyone's time just so he can think he's famous. Just a sample:

https://twitter.com/theshamingofjay/status/1641228805388873729

[Anonymous]

Sanderson’s attorneys are an embarrassment to the profession.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sanderson’s attorneys are an embarrassment to the profession.

He is a liar and he hired liars/losers to represent him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There’s an interesting divide in the opinions.

Younger, TikTok generation, skewing urban, think she’s lying

Older, FB generation, skewing suburban, think he’s lying

Anyone with a brain knows he's lying regardless of their demographics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The Today Show is covering this and apparently he went to 15 countries on insane trips in the years since the accident. The legal team showed him ziplining in Costa Rica, white water rafting, etc.

Hard to believe he really needs 300K of GP's $$$ to heal.

Wow, there’s no way I would find him credible after knowing this.

[Anonymous]

This is obviously all a total setup. There is literally no evidence that he was seriously injured in whatever crash occurred.

All the people who are saying that it's more like the injured party is the one who is hit (true), the study cited shows it's like 75% v 25%... I just don't understand how a 3/4ths chance of something = an absolute slam dunk that in a specific case something happened & the vitriol that is accompanying that pronouncement in this thread. Like, yes, with no other facts, it is roughly 3x as likely that the injured person got hit. BUT 25% isn't a tiny percentage that hardly ever happens AND there's lots of evidence his injuries are at least somewhat invented AND he's older/in worse shape (which the study itself says matters) AND his one eyewitness' story is obviously a lie. Given that I just don't see how you could be ABSOLUTELY CONVINCED she definitely hit him just because of the abstract 75%/25% likelihoods.