Why Do You Hate Gwyneth Paltrow More Than You Love Due Process?

Actress Gwyneth Paltrow is being sued for a collision on a ski mountain in Park City, Utah, that happened seven years ago. The plaintiff, Terry Sanderson, wants $3 million for what he says are injuries that destroyed his life.

At 69 years old with multiple underlying health conditions like partial blindness in one eye, a fragile skull, a stroke, a busted knee from skiing, trouble hearing, and more, Sanderson decided to throw caution to the wind and ski on a mountain teeming with people whizzing around at great speeds. He claims that Paltrow hit him from behind, causing four rib fractures and a devastating concussion that caused traumatic brain injury from which he never recovered.

Adding insult to injury, Sanderson says Paltrow “bolted off” after without even bothering to see if he was okay. Paltrow’s account is much different and her lawyers have claimed that Sanderson ran into Paltrow and Paltrow’s ski companion checked on Sanderson and helped him up while she picked herself up and went to join her family.

The only eyewitness is a friend of the plaintiff who contradicted his testimony at his deposition. If I were a jury member, I wouldn’t have found him very credible. It looked as if he was making up a new story to fit the plaintiff’s narrative, hoping no one would recall what he said at his deposition. Five years ago the witness testified that Paltrow was not wearing a helmet or goggles or face covering. Now, he says she was. Five years ago, he said he and the plaintiff ate together often. Now he claims they didn’t… or did. Watch the video.

.@attorneysings you have to see this. go back and watch from the top. I'm dying. This is not how testimony works, sir! Impeached! pic.twitter.com/v5hQ4YHW5g

— Megan Fox (@MeganFoxWriter) March 22, 2023

On top of the sketchy eyewitness testimony, there’s an email from Sanderson to his children entitled, “I’m famous,” where he sends a link to something that is no longer available claiming it’s evidence. The plaintiff’s daughter replies, saying there was a GoPro recording of the crash. But that video has gone mysteriously missing. No one knows where it is.

Terry Sanderson emailed his daughters "I'm famous" with a link claiming to show the footage of the accident. That footage caught on a GoPro is mysteriously missing. For me, if I'm on the jury, this is the end of his case. He had footage. It has been destroyed. #GwynethPaltrow pic.twitter.com/0bhT0xEqoU

— Megan Fox (@MeganFoxWriter) March 24, 2023

But despite all the evidence that has come out during the plaintiff’s case—the defense has yet to put on its case—the public appears to be rooting for Paltrow to lose. The prevailing sentiment on social media is that the movie star is “elitist,” “snobbish,” and “snooty.” Much of this is because of what people have interpreted from her facial expressions they deem unpleasant. Some are openly stating they don’t care if she’s at fault or not, they want to see her pay.

By now I don’t even care if she bumped into him or not – her attitude is pissing me off so much #GwynethPaltrowtrial #GwynethPaltrow #gwynethpaltrowskicrashcase pic.twitter.com/vPTaNimygG

— Lilly inLondon (@Lilly_in_London) March 23, 2023

Whatever it is people see in Paltrow’s face, I don’t know. I see someone who looks tired and anxious and who would rather be anywhere else than in court defending herself against what she believes is a false allegation.

I’m about to do something here that is probably not going to win me any friends, but I ask you, when was the last time I shied away from controversy? Here’s the thing: I know why you don’t like Gwyneth Paltrow. She named a kid “Apple,” she thinks nannies are a necessity (and believe me, if you could afford one, you’d think so too—I spent a blissful week in the Hamptons with my rich friend and her nannies took care of my children while we did whatever we wanted and it was great!). Paltrow wears clothes that cost more than your car is worth, she walks red carpets, she sells $2,000 heated yoga mats, and appears to have no idea that anyone buys food anywhere other than Whole Foods. But perhaps her biggest sin was selling a candle that claimed to smell like her vagina.

Gross.

But, of course, it didn’t really attempt to smell like genitalia and instead just smells like patchouli or, as my cousin who bought one says, smells like “aging hippie.” The truth is, it was a good gimmick. It got everyone talking about her company, Goop, and we still laugh about it today. It’s one of the things that makes me think Paltrow is probably hilarious. Is she out of touch with the common folk? Sure. But I bet after a few glasses of wine everyone around her is doubled over laughing.

I’ve been covering her trial after tuning in one night and seeing some of the weirdest lawyering I’ve ever seen. Paltrow’s attorney, Steve Owens, is one of the most abrasive, short-tempered lawyers I’ve ever seen on camera. His attitude is so shocking it’s genuinely hilarious and he doesn’t know it, which makes him even funnier. Here he is telling the judge he doesn’t want any objections from the plaintiff’s lawyer, like he has a choice.

I cannot stop laughing. pic.twitter.com/YTLPRg3kt2

— Megan Fox (@MeganFoxWriter) March 22, 2023

It’s pure comedy, but it isn’t helping Paltrow at all. Then again, the plaintiff’s lawyer isn’t exactly suave, either. He has a coughing problem that is so bizarre one wonders if it’s some kind of unknown strategy to interrupt at key moments, maybe. I don’t know, but it’s riveting television. For one, it’s a nice break from the traumatic murder trials we’ve all been watching. The stakes here are pretty low.

Second, we get to watch two rich people have a public fight. In case you want to feel sorry for Sanderson, he’s a doctor who skis at the most expensive mountain in Park City, Utah, and he travels the world regularly. This is not an average Joe who will suffer financially if a movie star doesn’t pick up his tab. In fact, Sanderson traveled worldwide after the crash he says destroyed his life and made him unable to enjoy anything anymore. The photographs of his jaunts to exotic locations tell a different story.

The plaintiff’s lawyers have hired expensive experts to testify that the only way Sanderson could have received his injuries is to have been hit from behind. I’m sure the defense counsel will also have an expert to tell us the opposite next week. Expert witnesses are often untrustworthy due to the fact that they are paid to tell whatever story the guy signing the check wants them to.

The only piece of evidence that would really clear this up is the missing GoPro footage of the accident. If the plaintiff had it and it shows he’s telling the truth, how could he have lost it? Why didn’t he sell it to TMZ for several hundred thousand dollars, as anyone else would do? The footage is the smoking gun. Without it, this boils down to he said/she said.

It is not unheard of, however, that a celebrity involved in some incident is sued as a cash grab by an unscrupulous person. It happens very frequently and is a hazard of being famous. Insurance companies that indemnify celebrities will often settle cases like this in order to make them just go away. Donald Trump is currently facing indictment for settling with Stormy Daniels over something similar. She attempted to shake him down, threatening to tell the public he had an affair with her, and he paid her not to. Whether he did have sex with that woman is unclear, but famous people paying off grifters and liars is very common.

But Paltrow did not settle. Instead, she chose (and her insurance company allowed her) to go to court and take a stand and say no. She’s putting herself on display, knowing she will face ridicule and unpleasantness. Why? Why would she do this when a quiet payment would have made it all go away? I can’t think of any other reason than she simply didn’t do it and her conscience won’t allow her to admit some form of guilt when she feels she was the one who was wronged—not only by being the injured party, but by then being extorted with a money grab.

No other explanation makes sense. Think about it. If the plaintiff is correct and Paltrow did hit Sanderson and was negligent in some way, would her insurance company allow her to take the risk of a much bigger jury award rather than a quicker, smaller settlement?

Would her family want to see her dragging their personal information into the public, on camera, knowing that she was at fault? Would her publicist? That doesn’t make any sense to me. If Occam’s Razor holds, the simplest explanation is the right one: that Paltrow was not at fault and wants to send a message that she is not an easy mark.

Many of the symptoms that Sanderson has suffered appear to be part of the normal aging process and his underlying conditions before the crash. I’m sure the concussion and broken ribs didn’t help. It’s much harder to recover as we age, which is one of the reasons Sanderson should have considered taking up golf or swimming or something much less risky as he approached the twilight years. To me, the negligence resides with him for putting himself at such a high risk of injury. But the law and the jury may disagree if they find Paltrow was responsible for the crash.

And sadly for Paltrow, that’s probably what will happen, despite no clear evidence of who hit who first. It seems to me that the public has made up its mind that Paltrow should pay because they don’t like her. She has a “resting bitch face,” she has too much money and leisure time, and the rest of us are having trouble buying eggs. She’s a convenient target of ire during a time of economic suffering because she represents what everyone wants and can’t have. The public envies Paltrow and so she must pay. EAT THE RICH and damn the facts. Justice is not blind. It’s vengeful and petty. They have decided they know her personally (though they don’t) and can read her facial expressions, and those expressions are what people imagine to have crossed the brow of Marie Antoinette as she laughed at the poor and mocked their empty bellies. All of that adds up to a guilty verdict in the eyes of the public (and, by extension, the jury since they, too, are members of the public).

This is dangerous. It is irresponsible, and if this is the basis on which decisions in the courtroom are made, we are headed down a very bad road. While Paltrow’s case is a civil case with a lower burden of proof, recent murder cases have given rise to a bad feeling in the pits of the stomachs of people who care about liberty and law. Attorney Joe Nierman recently gave voice to the heart of the matter when commenting on the Zachary Anderson guilty verdict on the thinnest of circumstantial evidence. (Around the 7:30 mark.)

We hold these truths to be self evident that we’re so high and mighty and we say all men are considered innocent in the eyes of the law until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Popycock! It is a lie! It is not true. It is not the way things work, and you see it time and time and time again. It felt like a miracle that a kid who is running for his life from people who were trying to kill him—and it felt like miracle that he managed to win on self-defense…We hold ourselves out to be far far better than we are. We stink!

Neirman continued to lament the leeway the state is given to convict someone using anything they can throw at him coupled with the permissiveness of the judges that is erasing the rights of the accused. It’s worth a listen. The public needs a much better understanding of what the rights of the accused person are, and we need to be very concerned that innocent people are being railroaded.

It’s a dangerous time to be in front of any jury, and I blame the #MeToo movement. Americans today believe in feelings over facts. They feel that Alex Murdaugh did it, so he is guilty. They feel that Zachary Anderson did it, so he is guilty. And if the pattern continues, Paltrow is as good as done. Everyone feels she’s guilty based on nothing but envy and personal prejudice against her for her unlikability. She’s lucky she’s not facing criminal charges; a negative outcome will only set her back a few million she can probably spare.

What cost will the American people pay if our justice system continues to be used as a weapon of revenge? Ask the “insurrectionists” rotting in jail for the last two years without trials. Justice is taking off her blindfold and what happens after that isn’t anything any of us want to experience.

(Editors note: this article initially misspelled Terry Sanderson’s name as Terry Sanders. This has been updated.)