She sounds so smug, fake and contrived.

Who is the young man behind them?
https://www.instagram.com/reel/CqGNmAppDBF/?igshid=YmMyMTA2M2Y=

The instructor said Gwyneth was making short turns on the right side. I bet she’s a great skier - she learned at Alta in the old school days when you were taught to keep your knees together in a very narrow stance. If she was making short radius turns on one side of the slope, her story is hard to believe. I just did a ski clinic where we practiced short radius turns and our former us national team coach said it would have been hard for even a pro to match her speed and turns and ski between her legs as she described. It could happen on a flat if you aren’t turning and are in a very wide stance or in a wedge.

Based on what the instructor said, I wonder if the optometrist made a turn that took him in front of her. If she wasn’t looking, she would have screamed and then hit him. It would technically be her fault, but on the other hand, he would have avoided the accident by not making wide turns. When my kids were young, I wouldn’t take them on crowded runs unless they were good enough to make short predictable turns on them. Forget whose fault it was, I didn’t want them to get hit.

Even if you try to avoid traffic by skiing down one side, you still have to not only look ahead, but scan the whole slope to make sure you avoid any people (usually little kids) making wide turns.

A second to look up at your kids doesn’t seem like a long time, but if you are traveling an average ski speed, 15 mph, you will cover more than 20 feet in one second.

Stay safe everyone. There was just a terrible sledding accident at Copper mtn and multiple deaths due to collisions with trees, tree wells etc.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I ski a lot with family and private instructors and have been injured by another skier skiing into me on the slopes before. I must say there’s no way GP isn’t lying. Here’s why:

1. She’s allegedly skied before. She’s skiing with 6 private instructors. Yet her skis are 18 inches apart. What?!
2. She’s skiing with 11 other people. Yet no one saw anything. Or is it that perjuring oneself is a step too far for the instructors and her children?
3. She had no injuries, and he had 4 broken ribs. Forget the concision, you don’t get broken ribs by falling into another person in a padded jacket.
4. She claims to have had time to clock his skis between hers, hear him grunting and think he’s a pervert. All before the impact. That’s not possible.
5. She claims she was targeted as a celebrity, yet she had a helmet and goggles on.

There’s more. But if you ski often, her story stinks. I’m sure she’s convinced herself of it, and is doing it for publicity for herself and the kids and as a deterrent from the future lawsuits. Given the Goop claims and her whoppers, it’s just a matter of time before people sue and maybe she thinks this will deter some.

But her instructor and her kids and her now husband are testifying?

And they have shown MeetUp messages that he and his friend knew it was her.

So that knocks out your #2 and #5.

1, 3 and 4 are plenty.
See above on 2
Messages before or after? After.

Those are your opinions, not facts.

Facts, girl.

Did Terry lose consciousness or not? He's hardly credible at this point.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I ski a lot with family and private instructors and have been injured by another skier skiing into me on the slopes before. I must say there’s no way GP isn’t lying. Here’s why:

1. She’s allegedly skied before. She’s skiing with 6 private instructors. Yet her skis are 18 inches apart. What?!
2. She’s skiing with 11 other people. Yet no one saw anything. Or is it that perjuring oneself is a step too far for the instructors and her children?
3. She had no injuries, and he had 4 broken ribs. Forget the concision, you don’t get broken ribs by falling into another person in a padded jacket.
4. She claims to have had time to clock his skis between hers, hear him grunting and think he’s a pervert. All before the impact. That’s not possible.
5. She claims she was targeted as a celebrity, yet she had a helmet and goggles on.

There’s more. But if you ski often, her story stinks. I’m sure she’s convinced herself of it, and is doing it for publicity for herself and the kids and as a deterrent from the future lawsuits. Given the Goop claims and her whoppers, it’s just a matter of time before people sue and maybe she thinks this will deter some.

But her instructor and her kids and her now husband are testifying?

And they have shown MeetUp messages that he and his friend knew it was her.

So that knocks out your #2 and #5.

Nope. They didn’t “see it”. You don’t not see a wipe out like that, you certainly see who’s on top of whom in the aftermath. They’ll testify but won’t testify they saw it so as not to perjure themselves. She’s a liar

Terry was unconscious. How did he see any of it? Your bias is clouding your judgment.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The 'victim' is blind in one eye and had a cataract in the other eye, plus he is old and can't remember what he said from day to day....he is torpedoing his own case on the stand.

Also, he sued the ski resort. He's a con man.

You all realize that blind people ski, disabled people ski, it’s called adaptive skiing and hasn’t been known to cause any injuries to others.

Gwynny is lying. Again. Just like on Goop

Lying about what specifically?

See the posts above. Lying about being hit. And not hitting. The 18 inch plus the other stuff listed makes it very clear to every experienced skier I’ve spoken with about this, and that includes some lawyers.

Terry is the one lying and full of inconsistencies. There's no way a jury will be buying his story.

Anonymous wrote:I ski a lot with family and private instructors and have been injured by another skier skiing into me on the slopes before. I must say there’s no way GP isn’t lying. Here’s why:

1. She’s allegedly skied before. She’s skiing with 6 private instructors. Yet her skis are 18 inches apart. What?!
2. She’s skiing with 11 other people. Yet no one saw anything. Or is it that perjuring oneself is a step too far for the instructors and her children?
3. She had no injuries, and he had 4 broken ribs. Forget the concision, you don’t get broken ribs by falling into another person in a padded jacket.
4. She claims to have had time to clock his skis between hers, hear him grunting and think he’s a pervert. All before the impact. That’s not possible.
5. She claims she was targeted as a celebrity, yet she had a helmet and goggles on.

There’s more. But if you ski often, her story stinks. I’m sure she’s convinced herself of it, and is doing it for publicity for herself and the kids and as a deterrent from the future lawsuits. Given the Goop claims and her whoppers, it’s just a matter of time before people sue and maybe she thinks this will deter some.

He waited years to file his lawsuit. He had ample time to figure out exactly who she was and estimate how deep her pockets were. Your take on this is weak. He was traveling at a very fast speed, you don't go down gently when going that fast.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The 'victim' is blind in one eye and had a cataract in the other eye, plus he is old and can't remember what he said from day to day....he is torpedoing his own case on the stand.

Also, he sued the ski resort. He's a con man.

You all realize that blind people ski, disabled people ski, it’s called adaptive skiing and hasn’t been known to cause any injuries to others.

Gwynny is lying. Again. Just like on Goop

Lying about what specifically?

Anonymous wrote:If you buy the story that he was skiing fast and she and her beginner’s family group were skiing slower, odds are good that the faster-moving object hit the slower-moving object. Like speeding cars slamming into slower traffic ahead of them. And breaking ribs seems much likelier from suddenly slamming into something you don’t see (blind in one eye) when you’re going fast than a lightweight skier slamming into you from behind.

You need to learn about Newtonian physics. Mass is only one part of the equation. Force equals mass x acceleration. A small mass can wipe you out if its acceleration is high enough. Momentum equals mass x velocity. Skis on snow have an alarmingly low coefficient of friction, which is why it’s fun, and why small masses can achieve relatively high velocity and acceleration in a short amount of time. This is why, regardless of size, the person struck, gets more injured. The person behind them strikes an object that is moving away from them. The person struck is hit by someone accelerating into them and then they get accelerated further into the ground. Obviously, worst case scenario is when an adult hits a child, which has happened many times resulting in fatalities. I’ve never heard of a child dying after running into an adult.

From an peer reviewed scientific article

“Fittingly, Burtscher et al. reported that the hit victims were more frequently injured than the responsible counterpart (93% vs. 25%) – presumably due to a lack of time for a purposeful reaction.”

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

I don't like Gwyneth Paltrow, I think she is self-serving and lacking in talent. But I don't think she skied into this guy, I think he skied into her and saw an opportunity.

Anonymous wrote:This might have been covered in 16 pages but…

300k is a rounding error for someone like goop. She’s either innocent and will counter sue for damages (if she hasn’t already- not following closely) or she’s guilty and this is a PR case for her and she knows she can afford better litigators to maintain her innocence. Don’t know why she wouldn’t just settle if the latter.

But then every time she goes skiing or to the store, people will try to get a rounding error out of her.

Anonymous wrote:If you buy the story that he was skiing fast and she and her beginner’s family group were skiing slower, odds are good that the faster-moving object hit the slower-moving object. Like speeding cars slamming into slower traffic ahead of them. And breaking ribs seems much likelier from suddenly slamming into something you don’t see (blind in one eye) when you’re going fast than a lightweight skier slamming into you from behind.

You are absolutely full of it.

The 'victim' is blind in one eye and had a cataract in the other eye, plus he is old and can't remember what he said from day to day....he is torpedoing his own case on the stand.

Also, he sued the ski resort. He's a con man.

If you buy the story that he was skiing fast and she and her beginner’s family group were skiing slower, odds are good that the faster-moving object hit the slower-moving object. Like speeding cars slamming into slower traffic ahead of them. And breaking ribs seems much likelier from suddenly slamming into something you don’t see (blind in one eye) when you’re going fast than a lightweight skier slamming into you from behind.

Anonymous wrote:This Hollywood kook is guilty as hell. She sounds like Amber Heard on the stand.

And you think Sanderson is legit? You must be the only one,