A Juror On *That* Ski Crash Trial Revealed Why Queen Goop Was Found To Be Gwynnocent

Gwyneth Paltrow testifying at ski crash trial in Utah wearing big brown glasses

Noted bone brother enjoyer Gwyneth Paltrow has reigned victorious after that whole ski crash trial hullaballoo, and now a juror has revealed why the Goopinator wasn’t found guilty.

ICYMI, retired optometrist Terry Sanderson filed a lawsuit in January 2019 accusing Gwynny of crashing into him at a ritzy ski resort in 2016.

He said the crash left him “seriously injured”, while she said he was the one who donked into her. As if that wasn’t bad enough, she also lost half a day of skiing. Thoughts, feelings and commiserations.

A jury found the actor to be Gwynnocent on Thursday, and said they believed the accident was completely Sanderson’s fault. Sounds like he should’ve gotten his eyes checked! Tee hee!

Samantha Imrie — AKA juror number 11 — told ABC News it was a “unanimous decision”, but she did admit wondering whether Paltrow was just a really good liar ‘cos, you know, acting.

“I think there was, in the back of my mind, ‘Yes, this woman’s an actress’ and I took that into account, but I didn’t feel she had a reason to lie under oath,” Imrie said.

“She’s always in the spotlight so she always has to be honest.

“It’s important that the public doesn’t just think that this was a win because Gwyneth’s a celebrity. I mean, this is based on the evidence. This is based on the law.”

On the flip side, Imrie said Sanderson’s story was “distorted”.

“He was telling his truth and I think, unfortunately, some of that has been distorted due to some other factors,” she said.

“But I do think he did not intend to tell a truth that wasn’t his truth.”

Speak your truths, king. Or not. I don’t know!

Apparently there were times during the trial when Imrie flip-flopped between believing either Paltrow or Sanderson, but her mind was made after an expert witness explained the logistics of skiing.

“He’s a snow sports expert in many different ways. I think the fact that Dr. [Irving] Scher could speak to the [ski binding] settings and he specifically studied snow science, that he had a stronger opinion,” she said.

Honestly, I chose the wrong career. What I’d give to be able to study snow science.

Sanderson sought US$3.1 million (AUD$ 4.6 million) in damages from Paltrow, and the bone broth connoisseur countersued for US$1 (AU$1.50), as well as her legal fees.

Absolutely iconic areas, I fear.

After the trial wrapped up, Terry Sanderson told reporters suing Paltrow was “absolutely not” worth it, per the Guardian. I could’ve told you that for free, babes.