A recap of events in the landmark Gwyneth Paltrow trial

 It's been a wild few days or perhaps even weeks, who's to say, in the landmark trial opposing Gwyneth Paltrow to a man or woman alleging that something happened to do with skiing. The court case could have huge implications for [??]. A quick recap of the crazy events we simply can't get enough of is in order. 

First off, the contention itself. Accounts differ as to what actually went down on that fateful morning or afternoon in Aspen, the Alps or possibly even Japan, why not. The Emma actor - during a skiing holiday with her children, at least one of whom is called Apple - was skiing, or on a chairlift maybe, when some guy alleges that, I want to say, they collided? Causing him to have pain? Paltrow, for her part, denies this version of events, counter-alleging that, I mean, what the fuck can you counter-allege to that, I dunno, that they didn't in fact bump into each other or something. At stake is, probably, the guy's hospital bill. 

The actor said many funny and insufferable things in court, such as "I'm rich", and "My snake-oil promoting company for idiots, Goop, sells one of those at five times the price, made out of Egyptian cotton." The prosecuting lawyer, on several occasions, probably had cause to sigh at an unwittingly privileged remark of Ms Paltrow's, and maybe remind her to confine her observations to the case in hand. For the defence, Paltrow's lawyers have been at pains to paint Mr or Mrs whatever, I think it's a man now come to think of it, as a gold-digging attention-seeking wannabe. 

The question on everybody's lips? Why, oh why oh why, did Ms Paltrow, whose pantheon of stupid shit includes the phrase "conscious uncoupling", a guest appearance on Glee, and a claim that she saved someone's life on 9/11, simply not decide to settle out of court? She could stand to lose a great deal more than money, in terms of negative publicity (that's negative as in the opposite of positive, rather than simply a lack of publicity so great that it has somehow gone below zero). 

Ooh ooh, what did Paltrow wear to court, that's the other thing! Fashion-lovers have possibly been raving about the Sylvia star's courtroom ensembles, although if they have then I haven't seen much about it online. "She looks like somebody from the 70s!" somebody commented on Twitter, in a sign of just how lacking in any fucking interest this whole farrago has been. Paltrow was furthermore praised for having good skin I reckon, and maybe she said something about how she ate bread during lockdown? Again, this stuff really hasn't cut through at all, like at all at all?!

What this could mean for other celebrities in future, and for court cases yet to come, is still too hard to say with any degree of certainty, although one thing is already clear: there needs to be a great deal more mess and STUFF HAPPENING if we're to give a shit, because at the moment "post a photo of yourself six years ago" and "capacious bag" are somehow winning the battle. Paltrow barely acts anymore anyway, I can't think when she was last in anything. As for the guy who brought the case, again, he hasn't registered with us in any way?!? How boring do you have to be, my guy!

More information as and when we get it, but suffice to say that as of writing, everybody's attention, on the day the court case closes, will be on a football match or what's happening in the Labour party. Stay tuned.