by Leslie Gornstein
You assume Madonna isn't lying. You know, lying? The way she denied through her flack getting a divorce or adopting a baby or dating A-Rod? Camp Madonna isn't exactly known for verity, Abe. In fact, at least one snapper, one paper and one cop say there were no paparazzi in or near the bushes when Madge's horse got spooked.
"She has to prove that that the reporter's action was the connection to her injury," attorney Robin Bond tells me. In other words, "that if the reporter would not have jumped out, the horse would not have spooked...She could even get money for pain and suffering."
Then again, she may not want to. A court case could cast Madonna as a litigious, greedy bully just when she needs to look maternal for an adoption judge in Malawi.
"My initial reaction was, no, she should not sue," attorney Andrew Weinstein tells me.
"From what I have read, her injuries are relatively minor and, if that is the case, the value of her claim would be low."
But let's just suppose Madonna is making sense for once. In that case, the leaping paparazzo just might have to watch his wallet...
If she can prove that the paparazzo's pirouetting caused her horse to start, she can, and even should, sue, attorneys and judges say.
"I would do a lie-detector test on Madonna first, and if she passed it I would show it to everybody," TV judge David Young tells me. Sure, Madge doesn't need money for medical bills, but "if Madonna takes a stand against the paparazzo that could be financial ruin forever for him. That could send a message."
Exactly what would Madonna have to prove?
No comments:
Post a Comment