I’m following the Gwyneth Paltrow skying collision trial on live TV – complex and contentious. Lots of objections from both sides and soooooo many calls of ‘please approach the bench’ from the judge and ‘can we approach the bench’ from the lawyers, to discuss points of law.
My gut reaction, only from observing Gwyneth Paltrow’s demeanour and body language, is that she is innocent.
I’m wondering if my ability to judge character is going to be sorely tested. Hope not!
A couple of things struck me - first, this happened in 2016 and second he’s only asking for $300K in damages. He claims this has changed his life but if that was really the case he’d have sued immediately and for millions not for an amount that to Paltrow is small change.
He sued in excess of 3 million dollars in the beginning, then later reduced it to 300,000 dollars. Why I don’t know.
I thought he did ask for something like $3million dollars originally and then dropped to the lesser amount. Just don’t know who is telling the truth and whether he is as injured as he says he is etc. I would not want to be the judge in this case, get Judy in, she will sort them out quick.
I too confess to watching a few video clips.
I agree with you @Bonzocat , both in the judgement and concern that we may be losing ability to discern genuine character from good acting.
The initial idea that she would slam into another skier and then leave them, presumably prone in the snow, without checking, seems strange unless they didn’t look that damaged or she really did think she was being assaulted.
The plaintif, on the other hand, in even bringing a civil suit for large financial reward, seems a bit opportunist.
Still, gives us a distraction from the truly serious news of the moment. 
She’s counter-suing for 1 dollar, plus legal expenses, which over several years might be ginormous!
My only caution is that she is renowned as a very good actor, so we probably can’t rely on those two factors.
$1, really? 
I’m fully aware of that. …I’m hoping that she is not acting and that my instincts are in the right place.
I agree it’s strange. Given her style of life she doesn’t come over as someone who would just callously go. But then I also think he doesn’t look the type to deliberately ski into her in a crude assault - if he’d been 20 years younger I would have said “maybe”. I wouldn’t like to have to decide.
What? Exploiting the gullible with useless potions and crystals?
All you who think that Gwyneth Paltrow is a great clean living woman should see how she makes her money via her “Goop” brand.
It’ll make you shudder.
Indeed, Paltrow has some very odd ideas.
Whether they extend to deliberately smashing into someone on a ski slope I don’t know - but she’s in court to find out whether her argument or that of the plaintif is more persuasive to a jury on that score.
I don’t think they are saying it was deliberately done, more she was distracted by her children.
Surely that would make it accidental and make the plaintiff’s case likely to fail.
Not that I’m especially bothered in this specific case. Let them argue it out and the jury decide who’s case has most merit.
Let’s face it when Americans are hell bent on shooting each other and treating women like chattels this seems to be of relatively little import.
Possibly not. Ski slopes can be very dangerous places if you don’t abide by the rules. If you’re on a ski slope, you have a duty of care for people down slope of you. Being distracted is no more of an excuse than if you did the same driving a car and ran someone over.
Yes. Psychic vampire repellant, coffee enema machines, vagina scented candles to name just a few.
Hmmm…Paltrow !?
Nope, I’ve got nothing.
She was quite close to a member of Coldplay, I seem to recall… that’s probably coloured my judgement.
Gwyneth Paltrow awarded $1 and cleared of fault over ski crash