Gwyneth Paltrow court case

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry ladies, this is just too unintelligent. But carry on amongst yourselves dears. Maybe you could shop on Goop to celebrate.

Is this cartoon supposed to be GP?

Nope, clucking hens.

[Anonymous]

A lot of outlets are reporting that she was awarded attorney fees.

https://ew.com/celebrity/gwyneth-paltrow-wins-ski-crash-trial-verdict/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wait she got a 1 and didn’t get $$ for attorney fees. That says a lot of what the jury thought.

No, but it says a lot about your lack of knowledge about how these proceedings go.

Save your “witty” remarks for stuff you actually have some clue about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A lot of outlets are reporting that she was awarded attorney fees.

https://ew.com/celebrity/gwyneth-paltrow-wins-ski-crash-trial-verdict/

Yep, this was an expensive case for the gifter. Wonder if he'll still be able to afford his pricey trips.

[Anonymous]

*grifter

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A lot of outlets are reporting that she was awarded attorney fees.

https://ew.com/celebrity/gwyneth-paltrow-wins-ski-crash-trial-verdict/

Yep, this was an expensive case for the gifter. Wonder if he'll still be able to afford his pricey trips.

The jury seemed to be insulted that this con man wasted so much of their time with the lawsuit and suing for "damages" like end of life care. He was clearly leading a very full and active life and didn't seem impacted at all by this minor crash 7 years ago. The Facebook photos were his undoing. So, I think they really stuck it to him. It's a wonder this case made it so far when there didn't even seem to be anything wrong with Terry.

I wonder if he was living large because he's already loaded or if he was expecting a large payout from the trial.

[Anonymous]

The thing is, none of it makes any sense. He had no proof, it was just his word against there. He stood to gain much less in damages than he stood to lose in attorneys fees (his and hers) if he lost. The only way it makes a smidgen of sense is if he was telling the truth and therefore thought he would win. And also, he has really unethical lawyers who let him pursue this to his own destruction over $300K.

[Anonymous]

^against hers

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The thing is, none of it makes any sense. He had no proof, it was just his word against there. He stood to gain much less in damages than he stood to lose in attorneys fees (his and hers) if he lost. The only way it makes a smidgen of sense is if he was telling the truth and therefore thought he would win. And also, he has really unethical lawyers who let him pursue this to his own destruction over $300K.

I agree

[Anonymous]

I wonder if they’d gotten litigation funding. When you have, it’s harder to pull the brake on a losing case. And not that long ago I was being absolutely hounded by funders trying to fund cases for me at my mix defense/plaintiff litigation boutique.

[Anonymous]

Insightful interview with a juror:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7EVAtYKQVw

[Anonymous]

Now that the jurors are speaking out, it's interesting to know that the first 2 I've seen are skiiers. The foreperson is an avid snowboarder. They were very aware of details to help decide who to believe. I wonder if the dcum ski "experts" still think they know better than the jury?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The thing is, none of it makes any sense. He had no proof, it was just his word against there. He stood to gain much less in damages than he stood to lose in attorneys fees (his and hers) if he lost. The only way it makes a smidgen of sense is if he was telling the truth and therefore thought he would win. And also, he has really unethical lawyers who let him pursue this to his own destruction over $300K.

I agree

Clearly you have had few serious dealings with narcissists. They fabricate their own reality and are both star and victim at all times.

[Anonymous]

Lord help us, she's going to milk this for all she can. When was the last time this woman was in a movie ? Even a straight-to-streaming movie ?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Now that the jurors are speaking out, it's interesting to know that the first 2 I've seen are skiiers. The foreperson is an avid snowboarder. They were very aware of details to help decide who to believe. I wonder if the dcum ski "experts" still think they know better than the jury?

Yes.

Also most skied while you watched/juried in service of your celebrity master.
I value my half days of living and skiing.

Jury found OJ not guilty, just saying.