A juror on the Gwyneth Paltrow panel has revealed the moment which set the jury leaning towards the actress favor in the multi-million-dollar trial.
Samantha Imrie, who was juror 11, said the panel was ultimately swayed by the actress’ testimony of snow science expert Dr Irving Scher.
The snow science expert also used stick figures as well as an animated recreation of the accident to help prove that the skiing accident could not have happened as Terry Sanderson described.
In an attempt to explain physics to the jurors, Dr. Scher drew stick figures to show how Sanderson and Paltrow would have been traveling that day and where their centers of gravity would have been.
He concluded that, based on physics, Paltrow’s version of events is ‘consistent with the laws of physics’ while optometrist Sanderson’s is not.
Samantha Imrie, who was juror 11, said the panel was ultimately swayed by the actress’ testimony of snow science expert Dr Irving Scher
Dr Scher used stick figures as well as an animated recreation of the accident to help prove that the skiing accident could not have happened as Terry Sanderson described
Dr Scher also noted that if Sanderson’s skis became intertwined with Paltrow’s he could have fallen and sustained rib and head injuries even if Paltrow did not slip on top of him.
Imrie spoke out for the first time since the decision was made yesterday, in which the court ruled that the Goop founder would be paid $1 by Sanderson.
She told GMA: ‘He is a snow sports expert, in many different ways. I think the fact that Dr. Scher specifically studied the snow science, that she had a stronger opinion.
‘The whole thing was a little shocking to me. We did have a unanimous decision. I think it’s important the public doesn’t just think this was a win because Gwyneth is a celebrity.
‘It’s based on the evidence and the law. I do work in medicine, and have to look at everyone the same. So I think that should apply in the courtroom, as well.’
Sanderson also claimed that he had been left with severe damage following the accident in 2016, but several pictures emerged at trial of him jet-setting across the globe.
Imrie added: ‘I think I wrote down, ‘Wow, I need to make more money so I can travel this way.’
‘I wouldn’t have thought he was capable of those things based on the picture that had been painted.
Imrie spoke out for the first time since the decision was made yesterday, in which the court ruled that the Goop founder would be paid $1 by Sanderson
Sanderson also claimed that he had been left with severe damage following the accident in 2016, but several pictures emerged at trial of him jet-setting across the globe
Sanderson had hoped when he launched the suit in 2019 to win a $3.1 million settlement; at trial, that amount was reduced to $300,000
‘He was telling his truth, and I think unfortunately some of that has been distorted due to some other factors. But I do think that he did not intend to tell a truth that wasn’t his truth.
‘In the back of my mind, yes, this woman is an actress, and I took that into account, but I didn’t feel that she had a reason to lie under oath. She’s always in the spotlight, so she always has to be honest.’
Sanderson had hoped when he launched the suit in 2019 to win a $3.1 million settlement; at trial, that amount was reduced to $300,000.
Paltrow sought a symbolic $1 – but, crucially, she requested payment of her legal fees, which could stretch into hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Source: | This article originally belongs to Dailymail.co.uk