UT - Gwyneth Paltrow sued over ski collision at Deer Valley Resort in 2016 - trial, March 2023 *GP Not Guilty*

[otto]

Sounds like a simple argument - symptoms that the plaintiff experiences today are related to age rather than the ski crash. That does open the question of : what is the cut off age where similar injuries/ symptoms cannot be attributed to age?

For example, is everyone over the age of 50 with similar crash injuries automatically ineligible for brain injury compensation on the basis that injuries mimic age-related mental deterioration?

 

[Weki]

He didn't care he crashed into a celeb?

I was paraphrasing. I don’t think he said HE crashed into her.

This is the most bizarre case. The plaintiff’s lawyers have rushed their client in direct and now Owens is whining about doing this cross and seems more concerned about his other witnesses!! Sir, this is the most important witness! We don’t want to hear what Apple has to say. And the experts will cancel each other out! This is the do or die moment for the defense and he’s acting put upon!

 

[Chelly]

All I want to know is... who crashed into whom?

 

[pentimento]

She yelled profanities, he said he was sorry. His injuries are consistent with a hard fall to the back on hard snow with an extra 130 pounds on top of you, and she was uninjured. Sounds like he ran into her IMHO.

 

[nodamselindistress]

I am not sure who crashed into who and if he knew it was GP beforehand, but what seals the deal for me is that within a matter of hours after the collision he and daughter Shea are talking about how there must be a GoPro of the collision so they will have "evidence". Why was there any talk about "evidence" at that point??? IMHO, once he found out it was GP he made up his mind to sue, plain and simple.

 

[Weki]

I am not sure who crashed into who and if he knew it was GP beforehand, but what seals the deal for me is that within a matter of hours after the collision he and daughter Shea are talking about how there must be a GoPro of the collision so they will have "evidence". Why was there any talk about "evidence" at that point??? IMHO, once he found out it was GP he made up his mind to sue, plain and simple.

Right! Because presumably at that point he doesn’t know he’s going to have “life altering” changes as a result. He passed the simple memory test that the nice helper gave him. Although he did have the broken ribs! But at that point I feel like any reasonable person would just be thinking it was a bad accident. I’m assuming he has not incurred any medical fees bc he’s covered by the VA. So what the heck did he need evidence for 6-8 hours after the incident?

 

[Chelly]

Agree with others who believe TS caused the collision and is taking advantage of GP's wealth to fraudulently sue her to make him rich.

 

[otto]

Isn't that a nice quality animation movie of skiers! Was the cost of this production mentioned?

 

[Weki]

The ski instructor on the stand right now is believable and direct with his answers. We’ll see how cross goes but I don’t know how the plaintiff wins unless jurors just hate celebrities or GP specifically. Regardless of the animation, this witness is on point and credible!

 

[ilovewings]

The ski instructor on the stand right now is believable and direct with his answers. We’ll see how cross goes but I don’t know how the plaintiff wins unless jurors just hate celebrities or GP specifically. Regardless of the animation, this witness is on point and credible!

very credible witness and not helpful to plaintiff

 

[BUF]

So many sidebars!

 

[BUF]

Agree with others who believe TS caused the collision and is taking advantage of GP's wealth to fraudulently sue her to make him rich.

…and gain notoriety

 

[Weki]

Isn't that a nice quality animation movie of skiers! Was the cost of this production mentioned?

Do you disbelieve the ski instructor as well? Genuine question. I know you’re on plaintiff’s side but the evidence is stacking against him IMO.

 

[otto]

Do you disbelieve the ski instructor as well? Genuine question. I know you’re on plaintiff’s side but the evidence is stacking against him IMO.

He didn't see the accident and he is commenting on animation productions about something that happened 7 years ago. Isn't there research about eye witness testimony resulting in many wrongful convictions? I'm sure that the witness believes what he is saying, whether it's reliable is another question.

"Studies have shown that mistaken eyewitness testimony accounts for about half of all wrongful convictions. Researchers at Ohio State University examined hundreds of wrongful convictions and determined that roughly 52 percent of the errors resulted from eyewitness mistakes."​

Teach Democracy

Teach Democracy FOUNDATION Bill of Rights in Action Summer 1997 (13:3)Forensic EvidenceBRIA 13:3 Home | The Riddle of the Romanovs | DNA, Lie Detector, and Voiceprint Evidence | How Reliable Are Eyewitnesses? How Reliable Are Eyewitnesse, Eyewitness testimony occupies a prominent place in the...

www.crf-usa.org

 

[pentimento]

Isn't that a nice quality animation movie of skiers! Was the cost of this production mentioned?

Uh-oh, gonna be included in attorneys' fees...

 

[Terrib11]

"Studies have shown that mistaken eyewitness testimony accounts for about half of all wrongful convictions. Researchers at Ohio State University examined hundreds of wrongful convictions and determined that roughly 52 percent of the errors resulted from eyewitness mistakes."

This refers to misidentifying criminals in the stressful situation of the commission of a crime. This situation is fairly straightforward in that two different people are claiming the encounter happened differently. When you apply the simple test of asking which person will benefit from their version being the one believed, it's obvious the Plaintiff has been panting with anticipation of this lawsuit, not for any sense of a wrong being righted, but for the notoriety and $$$$ he's been after since this happened.
MOO.

 

[Chelly]

…and gain notoriety

...which I think he'll come to regret. I have an intense dislike of cheaters and scoundrels and to me he appears to fit into that category,
IMO

 

[Chelly]

He didn't see the accident and he is commenting on animation productions about something that happened 7 years ago. Isn't there research about eye witness testimony resulting in many wrongful convictions? I'm sure that the witness believes what he is saying, whether it's reliable is another question.

"Studies have shown that mistaken eyewitness testimony accounts for about half of all wrongful convictions. Researchers at Ohio State University examined hundreds of wrongful convictions and determined that roughly 52 percent of the errors resulted from eyewitness mistakes."​

Teach Democracy

Teach Democracy FOUNDATION Bill of Rights in Action Summer 1997 (13:3)Forensic EvidenceBRIA 13:3 Home | The Riddle of the Romanovs | DNA, Lie Detector, and Voiceprint Evidence | How Reliable Are Eyewitnesses? How Reliable Are Eyewitnesse, Eyewitness testimony occupies a prominent place in the...

www.crf-usa.org

I tend to believe Eye-Witness-Ski-Instructor over Eye-Witness-Ramon

 

[NoSpoonFeeding]

Sounds like a simple argument - symptoms that the plaintiff experiences today are related to age rather than the ski crash. That does open the question of : what is the cut off age where similar injuries/ symptoms cannot be attributed to age?

For example, is everyone over the age of 50 with similar crash injuries automatically ineligible for brain injury compensation on the basis that injuries mimic age-related mental deterioration?

Not everyone over 50, just the vision and hearing-impaired ones that have already had a stroke. Why did he have a stroke?
That is not a good indicator of health and longevity.

"There are two main causes of stroke: a blocked artery (ischemic stroke) or leaking or bursting of a blood vessel (hemorrhagic stroke)."

Stroke - Symptoms and causes

www.mayoclinic.org

 

[Weki]

"Studies have shown that mistaken eyewitness testimony accounts for about half of all wrongful convictions. Researchers at Ohio State University examined hundreds of wrongful convictions and determined that roughly 52 percent of the errors resulted from eyewitness mistakes."

This refers to misidentifying criminals in the stressful situation of the commission of a crime. This situation is fairly straightforward in that two different people are claiming the encounter happened differently. When you apply the simple test of asking which person will benefit from their version being the one believed, it's obvious the Plaintiff has been panting with anticipation of this lawsuit, not for any sense of a wrong being righted, but for the notoriety and $$$$ he's been after since this happened.
MOO.

I agree —- this is not an eyewitness identifying a perpetrator. He acknowledged he didn’t see the collision but remembers seeing the plaintiff skiing fast downhill seconds before the collision. And he remembers what happened right after. It’s circumstantial evidence. He also puts Ramon 45 seconds away from the scene at the time of the collision.