Gwyneth : Not Running with Scissors

31. Gwyneth's mom or someone else responsible is probably right beside the baby, just not shown in the pic. As far as being kidnapped, Gwyneth would be off of those crutches in a heartbeat if anyone tried to mess with her baby. Injured leg or not. Give me a break. No pun intended. She is not an unfit mom.

Posted at 2:12PM on Jun 26th 2007 by Saney

32. Yep, Gwyneth Paltrow always has something snitty to say about other actors. Now she got caught being a sloppy mom and boy, that is the worst! IF there are people with her shopping it's hard to believe not one of them thought to hold Apple's hand but this picture doesn't lie, there's Apple and if others have accompanied Gwyneth, there is not a single person there with enough sense to take Apple's hand. If mom is alone and can't hold Apple's hand because of the crutches, she should leave the kid home with the nanny until Apple can be properly cared for out in public while mom is shopping. And who names a child Apple???!!!

Posted at 2:10PM on Jun 26th 2007 by Punked

33. No one said Gwyneth is an unfit mother, just sloppy and unaware. The child should have had someone holding her hand, beginning and end of this story, so aying others are there with Gwyneth is even worse, just shows they are ALL without common sense. Hopefully, this little photo-op will make them much more aware of that child's saftey needs in the future.

Posted at 2:16PM on Jun 26th 2007 by lilith

34. Wow, I was surprised at how one picture could stir so many negative comments. If she held Apple's hand, I think she would have been criticized for doing that while on crutches. So much negativity for someone that is just trying to spend some time with her child. Very sad.

Posted at 2:18PM on Jun 26th 2007 by MiChEle

35. Gwyneth can't walk without relying on a pair of crutches, but if someone tried to kidnap her child, she would be off the crutches running after them. Yeah, sure. Just hold the child's hand for chrissakes, and stop making lame excuses about who might be there or what Gwyneth might be able to do with a bum leg if her child is in danger. It's not rocket-science, you take the child's hand and.....that's pretty much it.

Posted at 2:20PM on Jun 26th 2007 by maggie

36. Oh these kidnapping posts are rediculous! I'm so sure someone is going to kidnap a child while they are being videotaped and photographed by the paps. And I too doubt that they are alone so it's pretty much a non issue here folks.
And whoever said that Apple is dressed like a hobo is mean. In fact, when I first saw the picture I immediately thought that her dress and little sandals were precious.

Posted at 2:21PM on Jun 26th 2007 by Katers

37. Nice eco-friendly SUV hypocrite.

Posted at 2:28PM on Jun 26th 2007 by Grannypants

38. # 34, Michele, If Gwyneth was alone, she shouldn't have had her daughter with her because Gwyneth would not be able to take care of a child that young with no hands available and with a bum leg. But people here seem quite sure there were others with Gwyneth, so THEY should have helped Gwyneth take proper care of the child. If you think concern for a child's welfare is "negative," Michele, I hope you are childless. I think it is great that there are so many people aware of the fact that children that young should have their hands held, ESPECIALLY if the parent is a famous celebrity and could very easily be the target of a kidnapping. If this has not occurred to Gwyneth and Co., it should have, for that child's sake. I am not a famous celebrity, but that is something I am aware of all the time when I am out with my kids. I find all the concern for Apple here to be very positive, not negative at all.

Posted at 2:29PM on Jun 26th 2007 by maggie

39. Boy, kidnapping is "ridiculous?" Just tell that to parents who have had their kids snatched right under their noses. And not even celeb kids. If nothing else, Gwyneth and her people should not look irresponsible in public with Apple, just might be a pervert nearby who would get the idea that this family is worth watching for an opportune time to move in. That's the way it is in the REAL world, and people who don't take this seriously have their heads up their rears.

Posted at 2:35PM on Jun 26th 2007 by Josh

40. Ha! Too true, number 37!

Posted at 2:37PM on Jun 26th 2007 by Anna

41. Ok, the picture didn't take itself, people. NO ONE is going to take that child, at least, not on this day. Hell, that child probably won't be allowed outside of 5 feet from her momma's crutches before a friendly pap-dog herds her back. Get real! If Gwynnie were holding the little fruit's hand, the little fruit's poor little foot would be CRUSHED, she would have gotten WHACKED with the crutches and/or her little hand would be smushed against the crutch handle!! Even if, on the OUTSIDE chance some idiot bust through the media throng and snatched the little fruit, you realize that a crutch is a whole lot LONGER than an arm and hurts a hella lot more when smacked against a skull??? Judging by how many rugrats hightail it around the grocery store/mall/restaurant (or, better yet, stand there are scream mercilessly while being IGNORED), I would say that the vast majority are self-rightous hypocrites, more than willing to judge the famous and wealthy but unwilling to turn the microscope on your own sad, mediocre lives. Peace!

Posted at 2:40PM on Jun 26th 2007 by SK

42. Oh Christ, if, if, if this happened Gwyneth could do this, if this happended the paps are there, blah blah blah blah blah. JUST TAKE THE KID'S HAND ALREADY AND STOP WITH THE BS. What's the matter with you people, it LOOKS like they aren't careful and why allow pervs to think they MIGHT have a reason to keep an eye out. Dang, why does it piss people off to just suggest the the kid might be better off if someone there was HOLDING HER FRICKEN HAND! Like someone here said, it ain't rocket science. Stop with all the lame excuses already.

Posted at 2:48PM on Jun 26th 2007 by Josh

43. #38 Sorry Mags, I am not childless, I have 2 grown sons. I was very aware of their safety as they were growing up, so I understand the importance of holding a child's hand. I also understand that a picture only provides a small view of the actual situation. When I first viewed the picture I noticed that Apple was walking freely. I am also familiar with Melrose Avenue, and the shops are right in front of the parking places. I could imagine that someone else was with them that just walked a few steps in front to open the door to the shop. I don't know that, the picture doesn't show it. If that is the case, where is the danger in letting Apple walk 5 feet into an opened store door with someone she trusts. What bothered me is how few were willing to give her the benefit of the doubt and were quick to assume neglect.

Posted at 2:52PM on Jun 26th 2007 by MiChEle

44. Well, you can't be too careful with all these celeb-baby kidnappings happening all the time. I still haven't got over the last one.....it was the Lindberg baby wasn't it?

BTW, how does holding the child's hand stop it from being kidnapped?

"Oh damn! I was going to kidnap that child, but Gwynny is holding her hand, thus making it impossible for my plan to suceed. Drat!"

Posted at 2:53PM on Jun 26th 2007 by wood

45. And by the way, I hold my kid's hand EVERYWHERE, and the "famous and wealthy" should do the same. And SINCE they are famous and wealthy, they should be doubly careful of their children. I have a feeling Paltrow's people are on this blog for her, WAY too pissed off that Paltrow was caught being careless. Hold the kid's hand next time, if there ARE paps everywhere like you say, be aware of what it looks like to have your kid APPEARING to be walking without adequate supervision outside.

Posted at 2:57PM on Jun 26th 2007 by Josh