Toggle navigation
Toggle navigation
Home
DCUM Forums
Nanny Forums
Events
About DCUM
Advertising
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics
FAQs and Guidelines
Privacy Policy
Your current identity is: Anonymous
Login
Preview
Subject:
Forum Index
»
Entertainment and Pop Culture
Reply to "Gwyneth Paltrow court case"
Subject:
Emoticons
More smilies
Text Color:
Default
Dark Red
Red
Orange
Brown
Yellow
Green
Olive
Cyan
Blue
Dark Blue
Violet
White
Black
Font:
Very Small
Small
Normal
Big
Giant
Close Marks
[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]The allegations against Paltrow reminded me of this incident a few years prior to the ski crash. She never admitted fault. Per her spokesperson, GP blamed the paparazzi for following her and said she pulled in front of the school bus because it appeared to be stopped. https://youtu.be/MEe7PAzn_Mk [/quote] The video is restricted and can’t be viewed.[/quote] I was was able to watch it and wow! Unbelievable what she did. It’s child endangerment. After watching the video I 100% believe she crashed into the skier because she wasn’t looking. [/quote] That’s not how it works.[/quote] We're not saying this past incident should be admissible in court. But for purposes of our own opinions, the scooter incident does illustrate her carelessness and lack of attention in another risky situation, coupled with her inability to take accountability. And she even wasn't in trouble in the scooter incident -- it was just some bad press -- yet her excuse was implausible. That doesn't mean she is guilty in the ski accident, although I do think she was not paying attention. Her son's ski instructor, who did not see the accident, said that the son yelled to GP, "Mommy look at me!" right before the accident occurred. Apparently GP acknowledged this in her deposition but on the stand said that she did not recall it. The only eye witness blames GP. In any case, my understanding is that if she was distracted but in front of the plaintiff, she would not be considered responsible for the accident -- only if she was behind him. I'm guessing that the jury will not find her responsible because it's hard to prove, but I don't see this as the clear cut case that some people in GP's side say it is. [/quote] I don't believe Terry Sanderson's version of events where he said she was distracted and turned to look at her children. If that's true and he saw it, he must have been uphill behind her. Otherwise how would he know if he was downhill of her.[/quote]
Options
Disable HTML in this message
Disable BB Code in this message
Disable smilies in this message
Review message
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics