TMZ

Our TV Shows

Got a Tip?

Call TMZ at (888) 847-9869 or Click Here

Mills' Allegations Against Paul

-- Blow by Blow

10/18/2006 2:34 PM PDT BY TMZ STAFF

TMZ has obtained a transcript of the allegations Heather Mills has made in court documents against her estranged husband, Paul McCartney. TMZ obtained the transcript from the Evening Standard, a London newspaper that broke the story.

Transcript:

10.1 The petitioner has been physically violent towards the respondent.

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 a "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 dined 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 thee 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 he 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 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 creche 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 he with alternative office space in the city but in the even insisted that she sue and 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.

11.26 The petitioner promised the respondent that he would protect her and support her in relation to adverse press reports but has failed to do so on numerous occasions, when he has been in a position to do so. In mid-November 2004 the respondent was warned that a forthcoming article about her was to appear in the Sunday Times magazine and included the line "the best thing that ever happened to Heather Mills McCartney was losing her leg" which was distressing and vulgar press commentary. As the petitioner had been asked to participate in the half-time entertainment for the Superbowl on Fox TV owned by Rupert Murdoch (who also owns the Sunday Times), the respondent asked the petitioner to tell Mr Murdoch that he would not confirm his participation in the Superbowl unless he agreed not to run the deeply unpleasant story. However, the petitioner refused to assist the respondent in this way, announced his involvement in the Superbowl and therefore the Sunday Times had no reason not to publish the story.

11.27 The difficulties in the marriage came to a head at the end of April 2006 On Tuesday 25 April 2006, following an operation on the respondent's amputated leg, an argument occurred during which the petitioner poured the balance of a bottle of red wine over the respondent's head and then threw what remained in his wine glass at the respondent. The petitioner then reached to grab the respondent'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." The respondent still bears the scar of the assault.

11.28 On Wednesday 26 April 2006, at about 8pm, the respondent asked the petitioner not to leave her alone with Beatrice at the Cabin (because it is isolated in the middle of a forest). She had just had surgery on her leg (a revision amputation), was in a wheelchair, and was anxious about her ability to cope by herself. Notwithstanding this, he walked off. The respondent then telephoned the petitioner, and asked him to return. The petitioner mocked her please, mimicking the voice of a nagging spouse, and refused to return. (Later, she alleges, she) pulled him, staggering, towards the ground-floor bathroom, undressed him, ran the bath and helped him into it. She then phoned the petitioner's psychiatrist for advice and he told her not to attempt to move him (she might otherwise "do herself an injury"), to get a duvet and two pillows, to empty the bath of water, cover him, and leave hi m there. The respondent thereupon dragged herself upstairs, on her hands and knees, she was unable to wear a prosthetic leg as the wound from the surgery had not yet healed), and brought back down the duvet and pillows. She found that the petitioner had vomited on himself. She rinsed him off, and (worried that he might choke if he vomited again in the night, unattended), she got him out of the bath, dried him, and dragged him upstairs to bed. At that time, the respondent also had a broken plate in her pelvis, and she was in agony; she also feared the exertions would cause the stitches from her pelvic scar revision operation to burst.

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 collect 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 reared 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 wen 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 know 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.
220 COMMENTS

No Avatar
61.

Keith Brown    

Having watched the Beatles perform on Ed Sullivan those three weeks in 1964 and having grown up with The Beatles all through junior and senoir high school, the allegations of marijuana use do not come as any great shock, being as Paul has had numerous run-ins with the law through the years regarding that very issue. Is Heather Mills THAT naive? Certainly he would have been doing it the whole time they were courting, so she knew about that part of it as to what she was getting into. As for the allegations of physical abuse, having not been there, I cannot comment one way or the other. I certainly hope not. However, one would think that Paul, if indeed a wife-abuser, would have a history of that due to the many years that he was with Linda, and not once was anything of the sort ever reported or alleged. In the end, my final analysis is that this is legal posturing by Heather Mills. If she truly has witnesses to some of this stuff as she states, bring them forward...

2738 days ago
62.

Caroline    

What addiction? An addiction to pot? C'mon.

2738 days ago
63.

Liz    

I find it very hard to believe that a woman who has to drag herself upstairs "on her hands and knees" can then turn around and drag a full grown, drunk, passed out man, upstairs. This is a crock of you know what.

2738 days ago
64.

jennifer    

If Paul behaved anything like Heather accuses, it would have been exposed much sooner. John Lennon had the reputation of being mean - never heard mean used to describe Paul. In any marriage as previous posters have stated there will be arguments. Heather is desperate, as she knows she is the one with the tawdry past and the ill-gotten fame solely for being Sir Paul McCartney's wife. She bandies that title around as often as possible when she needs to be recognized. You're a major LOSER, Heather, who somehow won the lottery when Paul gave you a second glance. Oh, and that was Heather's ex-fiance (maybe her dad, too) who tried to warn Paul BEFORE the marriage.

2738 days ago
65.

Elizabeth    

WTF,

I think it is safe to say that the media doesn't publish ALL. It's well known around the world how loved "Sir" Paul McCartney is to England and it's pretty obvious at how the media perceives Heather Mills as a gold digger. If you don't think that the media can play favorites then you are easily deceived.

If you know anything about spousal abuse you would know that spouses can and do stay together for reasons unseen to the rest of us. Perhaps she stayed because they had a child? Who knows why people stay with people that abuse them. I don't and I don't think you do either.

Perhaps after being called a "whore" and endless public ridicule she decided to tell her side of the story. There are two sides to every story, though, and we have yet to hear from Paul.

If you haven't witnessed a messy divorce fueled by the media then you have the pleasure now.

And I do think that it's ignorant to dismiss one person's claim just because you really like the accused. Life isn't always what it seems to be, WTF. Try opening your eyes. Have you ever thought that someone was really great only to find out that they were possible of change? If you haven't, congratulations, you may be the first.

2738 days ago
66.

Um    

And PS, I'm not a fan of Paul's at all.

2738 days ago
67.

Belle    

Having been married to a wealthy attorney that physically, emotionally, and verbally abused me (even broke my wrist and got HIMSELF arrested for domestic violence) - the DETAILS of her story ring so true to me; why does money and fame and title and 'worship' make him a SUCKER for a younger women that walks on him? He's a VERY grown man with STAFF, attorney's/solicitors to advise him ... and we blame HER for walking into his trap!
Why on earth would she make this up?! What ever she did, she never deserved the abuse put on her by 'SIR' Paul.
I'm sorry but some men with money and power just feel entitled to their 'way' and to have their pleasures met and cared for.
Linda was probably a Saint - or better yet - Paul loved her and found in Heather parts of Linda that he missed and when Heather didn't 'measure up', Paul LOST IT and took it out on Heather!

I believe every word. It's too SPECIFIC to make up. And don't get me wrong, I love Paul McCartney, and YES a pre-nup was in order, but don't blame Heather Mills McCartney for HIS BEHAVIOUR.

Sorry for the 'American' spelling y'all.

2738 days ago
68.

Jay    

"Don't judge a book by it's cover..." This cover screams "wacko" if anybody even glances in it's direction...Beatrice needs to be protected...Not Heather, not Paul...I hope Heather is not nearly as demented as she's painted, but I doubt it...Think back to when you were a kid...Can you picture your Mommy writing this crap about your Daddy? If she's so against the media and it's interest, take your money and go away...Nobody's gonna care about her in twenty minutes anyway...

2738 days ago
69.

jennifer    

I think Heather Mills is a very determined, strong person - sounds like she needs a babysitter after all that. I can't believe she would have put up with what she says happened. I think the 'lady' is nuts - seriously !

2738 days ago
70.

Um    

"I believe every word. It's too SPECIFIC to make up."

Dude, you have to be kidding. Have you never read a book before?

2738 days ago
71.

Gina    

What a goldigger!!! Paul should have had her sign a prenuptual agreement, pure and simple. She sounds like a complete looney. His first marriage to Linda was happy. What a step down when he "chose" this person.

2738 days ago
72.

Lara    

One legged liar.

2738 days ago
73.

sam    

I hate her more than ever now. What a huge liar!! Every tabloid in England reports on every single thing any one of the Beatles have ever done all of their lives. And not one has ever reported Paul behaving badly. They've reported on John's attitude and bad temper. They told us about George during his divorce. So how would Paul be so lucky?? Ridicules.

2738 days ago
74.

benjamin cziller    

There are always 2 sides to every story right? The only way for any allegations to be verified are via the testimonials of witnesses and transcript documents of filed allegations at the time of ocurence. These will ultimately be the final arbiter in a case of law. Period. Everything else is sensational bull.

2738 days ago
75.

C.R. Nibot    

1. Her lawyers wrote it.

2. She's exaggerating her inability to get around.

3. The rest of it (thrown wine glass, thrown Heather, drugs & alcohol, the cooking requirement) is probably, for the most part, true.

4. Clearly, a miserably unhappy marriage.

5. They will settle before trial, probably for about $150 million in British pounds.

Moral: Next time, listen to Stella.

2738 days ago
Previous 15 Comments | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | Most Recent | Next 15 Comments

Around The Web