Skip to comments.McCartney divorce sensation: Sir Paul hits back
Posted on 10/18/2006 2:58:14 PM PDT by COUNTrecount
Sir Paul McCartney has hit back at the claims made by his estranged wife Heather Mills that he repeatedly attacked her.
In a statement issued by his lawyers, the Beatles pop star said: "Since the breakdown of his marriage Sir Paul McCartney has maintained his silence in not commenting on the media stories believing that it was best for all concerned, particularly his children, for there to be some dignity in what is a private matter.
"Our client would very much like to respond in public and in detail to the allegations made recently against him by his wife and published in the press but he recognises, on advice, that the only correct forum for his response to the allegations made against him is in the current divorce proceedings.
"Our client will be defending these allegations vigorously and appropriately. Our client is saddened by the breakdown of his marriage and requests that his family is allowed to conduct their personal affairs out of the media spotlight for the sake of everybody involved."
The response came on the day Heather Mills accused her estranged husband Paul McCartney of repeated violence against her.
Explosive court papers lodged by her lawyers in their £1billion divorce battle portray him as a 'vindictive' man who once tried to choke her and even attacked her while she was pregnant.
In an extraordinary escalation of their dispute, Miss Mills claims in the documents that the ex-Beatle:
Subjected her to four violent attacks, including one in which he stabbed her in the arm with a broken wine glass. Continued to use illegal drugs and drink excessively, despite promises made before they married. Hurled abuse at his wife, calling her an 'ungrateful bitch'. Tried to prevent her breastfeeding, saying: 'They are my breasts.' Made her cancel a crucial operation because it interfered with his holiday plans. Objected 'vociferously' when she asked to buy an antique bedpan to save her crawling to the toilet at night. In the papers, which will form the basis of her bid for a share of Sir Paul's estimated £1billion fortune, she claims he became 'physically violent' and acted in a 'vindictive, punitive manner' towards her.
A series of episodes are described in which she alleges he physically attacked her.
In Los Angeles, in November 2002, the papers say, he 'grabbed her by the neck and pushed her over a coffee table'.
He then went outside and, in his allegedly drunken state, fell down a hill, cutting his arm, which remains scarred Later, in May 2003, while Miss Mills was four weeks' pregnant, she claims Sir Paul became 'angry and pushed' her into a bath. She says she suffered 'shock and distress'.
On Long Island, in August 2003, Miss Mills asked Sir Paul if he had been smoking marijuana and claims he became 'very angry, yelled at her, grabbed her neck and started choking her'.
In April 2006, as the marriage neared collapse, Sir Paul allegedly tipped red wine from a bottle over his wife's head and then threw what remained in his glass at her.
The divorce papers claim that Sir Paul 'then reached to grab the respondent's (Miss Mills's) wine glass, and broke the bowl of the glass from the stem.
'He then lunged at the respondent with the broken, sharp stem of the wine glass, which cut and pierced the respondent's arm just below the elbow, and it began to bleed profusely.
'He proceeded to manhandle the respondent, flung her into her wheelchair and wheeled it outside, screaming at her to apologise for "winding him up".' Miss Mills 'still bears the scars of the assault', the papers say.
The papers allege that Sir Paul humiliated his wife, or ignored her needs. After the birth of their daughter Beatrice in 2003, he forced his exhausted wife to 'accompany him everywhere' still with no regard to her physical or disability needs, they claim.
'Forced to crawl on hands and knees'
In April 2006, it is claimed, Miss Mills - who lost a leg in a road accident in 1993 - was forced to crawl on her hands and knees up the steps of a plane because they were not wide enough for her wheelchair and Sir Paul had not made other arrangements.
Sir Paul allegedly told his wife during her pregnancy she should not breastfeed because 'they are my breasts'. He is alleged to have told her: 'I don't want a mouthful of breastmilk.'
She breastfed for six weeks, but gave up because Sir Paul would constantly interrupt her during feeds which left her 'miserable and demoralised', the papers say.
In November 2005, Sir Paul is alleged to have forced her to defer an essential and already once-cancelled operation on her leg because it 'interfered with his holiday plans'.
The papers claim Sir Paul vomited on himself after a drinking session towards the end of their relationship and staggered home drunk and slurring, demanding his dinner.
On April 28 this year, with the Sir Paul has signalled his marriage 'irretrievably broken determination not to be down', Miss Mills left the family painted as the villain. His divorce petition allegedly cites his wife's 'unreasonable behaviour'.
His claims that she was 'argumentative' and 'rude to staff' during their marriage were leaked, along with the assertion that she reneged on a deal to take £30million in exchange for a painless divorce.
Miss Mills has hired the lawyer who won Princess Diana her £17million settlement from Prince Charles.
She replaced her long-standing lawyer Stephen Taylor with Anthony Julius, of Mishcon de Reya. Sir Paul will be represented by Fiona Shackleton, who took Charles's side in 1996. Last night, a spokesman for Sir Paul refused to comment. Mishcon de Reya said it would not comment on leaked or allegedly leaked documents.
But a statement added: 'The law firm can however confirm that Lady Heather Mills McCartney stands by everything that has been filed at court on her behalf and intend to prove its truth in due course, should this be necessary.
Miss Mills's spokesman said last night: 'I can't confirm the validity of these documents. I can only refer you to Heather's lawyers.'
10.2 The petitioner has behaved in a vindictive, punitive manner towards the respondent, on occasion thereby exposing her to risk.
10.3 In breach of his promises to the respondent made when she agreed to marry him, the petitioner continued to use illegal drugs, and to consume alcohol to excess, throughout the marriage, thereby causing the respondent distress.
11.2 On one occasion in Los Angeles in or about the end of October or beginning of November 2002, in the presence of others, the petitioner (who was drunk) loudly pointed out that the respondent was in an "bad mood." (The respondent was unhappy because hostile comments had been made about her on the Barbara Walters show).
When the petitioner and respondent got back to their house they began to argue about the petitioner's behaviour towards the respondent.
The petitioner grabbed the respondent by the neck and pushed her over a coffee table. He then went outside, and in his drunken state he fell down a hill, cutting his arm (which remains scarred to this day).
11.3 On 12 May 2003 when the petitioner and the respondent were in a hotel in Rome and the respondent was four weeks pregnant, the petitioner behaved coldly and with indifference towards the respondent who was distressed by a derogatory newspaper article about her.
An argument ensued between them in the bathroom during which the petitioner became angry and pushed the respondent into the bath.
The respondent suffered shock and distress. Notwithstanding this, the petitioner procured the respondent's attendance at his concert that evening by instructing his staff to pester her until she relented.
11.4 On the same occasion, and following the concert, in a fit of pique because the respondent refused to go to the after-show party and instead dine privately at a restaurant with her sister and her personal female bodyguard, the petitioner directed the female bodyguard to abandon the respondent, leaving her exposed to the attentions of the hordes of fans (500,000 attending a free concert) in Rome at that time.
At the end of the meal, the respondent was forced to take a 30-minute walk back to the hotel, no taxi being available and the car driven by the female bodyguard having been withdrawn from her use by the petitioner. 11.5 In Long Island in August 2003 the respondent asked the petitioner if he had been smoking marijuana. He became very angry, yelled at her, grabbed her neck and started choking her.
11.17 The respondent was delivered of her daughter by caesarean section and was very tired after the birth.
Despite this, the petitioner forced her to accompany him everywhere having no regard to her emotional or physical (and especially, her disability) needs.
Indeed, in this connection some two and a half years later (22 April 2006), shortly after the respondent's revision amputation surgery, she was forced to crawl on her hands and knees up aeroplane steps because they were not wide enough to take her wheelchair.
The petitioner had assured the respondent that he had taken care of her disability needs in connection with the trip (which he compelled her to take with him), but in fact he had not troubled to do so.
11.18 The petitioner often told the respondent when she was pregnant that he did not want her to breast-feed their child, making on occasion the comment "they are my breasts" and on another occasion, "I don't want a mouthful of breast milk." Notwithstanding this, the respondent did breast-feed Beatrice until, after six weeks, the petitioner's constant interrupting of her when breast-feeding (often in the presence of a midwife) had become so intolerable to her that she gave up.
This made her feel very miserable and demoralised.
11.19 On 19 November 2005, the petitioner required the respondent to defer an essential and once-cancelled operation on her leg for two months because it would have interfered with his holiday plans.
11.20 The respondent was expected to prepare two dinners every night, one for the child of the family and one for the petitioner. The petitioner did not like the respondent to be assisted in the preparation of his meals, despite her disability.
Even when the respondent had a broken pelvic plate in December 2003 the petitioner insisted that she cook for him while she was on crutches, could barely move and was in agony.
11.21 The petitioner refused to allow the respondent to get out of bed before he was ready to get up in the morning even though she would wake up early and wished to use the time for essential physiotherapy for her leg and to attend to emails and administrative tasks before the staff arrived or their child woke up.
11.24 The respondent often needs to go to the bathroom during the night, when her prosthetic limb is not fitted and so has to crawl to the bathroom on her hands and knees. This causes calluses and scrapes on her knees.
She asked the petitioner if she could buy an antique bedpan to keep under the bed and use at night if necessary (whilst he was asleep) so as to avoid her having to struggle. The petitioner objected
He wheeled her out, screaming at her to apologise vociferously, saying that it would be like being in "an old woman's home."
11.25 Throughout the marriage, the petitioner refused to allow the respondent to use his beautiful spare office in New York, on the floor beneath their apartment, in a building owned by the petitioner; he told her that he did not want her to have an office in the same building.
This was notwithstanding that she wanted to work on charity matters during Beatrice's two-hour nap and also be near to Beatrice in case she woke up.
Using the office in the apartment block would also have meant that the respondent could have created a créche area in part of the office for Beatrice to play in for part of the time.
The respondent could not understand the petitioner's refusal as he allowed his staff to work in the spare office if necessary, but he remained firm in his view.
At the end of September or the beginning of October 2005, the petitioner reluctantly agreed to provide her with alternative office space in the city but in the event insisted that she use an office that was far too small for any sensible purpose and was 20 minutes walk away, which meant the respondent would have to leave Beatrice behind during her nap.
When the respondent went to view it, she was chased by paparazzi, and was so demoralised by the experience, she never used the office.
The petitioner called her "an ungrateful bitch" in front of their driver when she explained why the office was not right for her.
The petitioner made his position known in front of other people, including staff, which caused the respondent to feel insignificant and humiliated. 11.29 On Thursday 27 April 2006 the respondent knew that the petitioner would be too hungover to help her with Beatrice and due to her own incapacity as a result of the recent operation, she had to call the babysitter to ask if she could come to help at 7.45am in getting Beatrice into the car and to the nursery.
The respondent went with the babysitter to drop Beatrice at the nursery and collected her later that day.
When she returned, the petitioner had woken up and tried to make a joke of the incident the night before.
The respondent appeased him, as she feared what would happen otherwise. That evening the petitioner drank very little (a half bottle of wine) and went to bed.
The following day, Friday 28 April 2006, the petitioner went to London but said he would be back in time to help the respondent put Beatrice to bed.
He did not arrive back at her bedtime, even though he knew the respondent could not cope on her own. The respondent had to ask a friend to help put Beatrice to bed.
At 10pm the petitioner returned home staggering drunk and slurring his words, demanding his dinner.
The respondent stated that it was on the stove but that she would not be cooking for him again, as he had no respect for her.
The petitioner called her "a nag" and went to bed.
That evening the respondent realised the marriage had irretrievably broken down and left, crawling on her hands and knees whilst dragging her wheelchair, crutches and basic personal possessions to the car.
Paul must be wondering what on earth he was thinking when he married this psycopath.
We now have the answer to the question 'Will ya still need me, will ya still feed me when I'm 64?"
Not to worry. This kind always lands on her foot.
" crawling on her hands and knees whilst dragging her wheelchair, crutches "
What?,.....she couldn't use the crutches or wheelchair? Why was she "crawling on her hands and knees? instead of using the crutches or wheelchair?
I don't get it.
Heather Mills...Anna Nicole Smith....John Forbes Kerry....what's the difference?
Simple.she wasn't.Or else she chose to do so for God-knows-what-reason.
Her slanderous claims sound more like a scornful ex-witch trying ruin Paul's good name.
Subjected her to four violent attacks, including one in which he stabbed her in the arm with a broken wine glass.
Did she takes pictures of her injuries; did she call the cops.
She didn't have to.McCartney has far,*far* more to lose in all of this than does she.Before long,a secret agreement will be reached between them which will get her much more $$$ than she otherwise would have gotten.
In a PR dogfight between a one legged woman and an intact man the woman will win every single time.
This divorce is really going to cost him an 'arm and a leg'
So much for Mellow Yellow.
When I get older, losing my hair, many years from now,
Will you still be sending me a Valentine, birthday greetings, bottle of wine?
If I'd been out 'till quarter to three,would you lock the door?
Will you still need me, will you still feed me,
When I'm sixty-four?
You'll be older, too. Aaah, and if you say the word, I could stay with you.
I could be handy, mending a fuse, when your lights have gone.
You can knit a sweater by the fireside, Sunday mornings, go for a ride.
Doing the garden, digging the weeds, who could ask for more?
Will you still need me, will you still feed me, when I'm sixty four?
Every summer we can rent a cottage in the Isle of Wightif it's not to dear. We shall scrimp and save.
Ah, grandchildren on your knee, Vera, Chuck, and Dave.
Send me a postcard, drop me a line stating point of view.
Indicate precisely what you mean to say, yours sincerely wasting away.
Give me your answer, fill in a form, mine forever more.
Will you still need me, will you still feed me, when I'm sixty four?
I wasn't there, and neither was anyone else on this forum.
My question: is there a possibility these things really did happen?
The answer is yes.
Heather Mills is a psycho from outer space.
Is it possible?
The answer is "Yes"!
She wants more than thirty million for - what - four years of marriage?
She doesn't appear to be lived very well across the sea, although I have no reason why.
Ringo and Barbara Bach recently celebrated their 25th anniversary together. Ringo certainly seems happy.
Star Wars, Episode IV: The Macca Strikes Back
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.