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
91.

pebbles    

If Paul wanted Arm Candy, he could have done A LOT better than Heather.

I don't understand: if she was so disabled (i.e., could NOT even walk, had to CRAWL), then how would she be able to drag a 180 lb man around. I don't get it:

She said that she "pulled Paul, staggering, towards the ground-floor bathroom, undressed him, ran the bath and helped him into it. She found that Paul 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. "

Why don't her lawyers tell her that her story in NOT believeable?
She doesn't have a leg to stand on !

2927 days ago
92.

Franca    

Back in England it was printed that Paul had beaten Linda up several times. His butler wrote a book about how Paul threw Linda out in the rain when he found out she was pregnant. Although I still think Heather is a gold digger!

2927 days ago
93.

bobbie    


reading this is tough...Paul McCartney is the Beatles to us now....and certainly his public personna very appealing and reassuring...Heather's no dummy....maybe she's not as popular as Paul but that doesn't mean she's lying. my gut, however unhappy to do so, says there's some truth here..more than i probably want to know.

2927 days ago
94.

dm    

i believe her...

2927 days ago
95.

Lenn K    

Heather, you can stop the act now, you're starting to sound like a lawyer rehearsed, one-legged, lunatic, liar. You know you're getting big cash so just shut the hell up. Paul was very vulnerable, letting his guard down was very dumb and now he will pay for it. Just like Billy Joel will pay in the future. Male celebrities are not smart, time after time they let their huge egos get in the way of logic. These young girls are smart, first get married, then get pregnant and then divorce his ass take him to the cleaners.

2927 days ago
96.

Duncanidaho    

Yes indeed, he was the quiet Beatle, the cute Beatle, the Beatle every girl loved and every man wished he could be. Listen my friends if one was to be honest with ones self history will show that it is usually those who have such a facade as Paul's that tend to never show what lays behind closed doors. What we do know is simply positive spin from a career that has been handled by the very best of PR company's against a diabled women who has had not even the slightest negative moment in press until she dared to marry the iconclastic McCartney, spare me the barbs of blind loyalty to a "Beatle" and let Heather Mills have her day in the judical court of law and not the court of public perception and opinion

2927 days ago
97.

John K.    

Some of this might be true,who really knows? I know that I don't want to believe it, But I also know how I can get at times. What Happened to the Love?fgind it, and hold on!

2927 days ago
98.

Sandra    

Ahhhh...heather heather heather. You must do a lot of push ups. Did you drag the treadmill too? I bet your ass is in prestine shape from draggin mr beatles limp body up those stairs. and hey? how's the pelvic fracture?

I can beat you. I dragged my passed out great dane up mount everest after he had a hard night of drinking and drugs. I slipped on his tongue and the ice many a time. Did I mention I had just been paralyzed? I drug myself on my hands and knees all the way to the BANK!

2927 days ago
99.

jen    

I've been a McCartney fan all my life. He's never been a saint - but increasingly, there have been chinks in the 'nice guy' facade he has so carefully cultivated. Let's face it - Linda waited on him hand and foot, never left his side, etc. etc. - and that's the way he wanted it. So all was well. Heather, on the other hand, had a life and career before she met him - she was simply not going to be his doormat. But he expected her to follow him around like a puppy, take endless amounts of abuse and then to be "grateful" for it.
He may be a nice guy in some situations but obviously he can also be a drunken, abusive, arrogant dick. I'm not at all surprised.

2927 days ago
100.

ginger    

Being handi cap myself, I believe heather is full of BS. You do not have to crawl anywhere on your hands and knees, use CRUTCHES........DUHHHH. Also, Paul took care of Linda through her sickness, so it does not make since that he would treat Heather badly. She just wants his money, I hope she gets nothing and there will be a trust fund for the baby to inherit when she gets a certain age.

2927 days ago
101.

Sherry    

Geez. Heather seems to crawl on her hands and knees a lot. Has the woman never heard of crutches?
What a load of crap.

2927 days ago
102.

Diana S. Irwin    

Abusers do not show their true colors until they have the trust of their victim.

Of course no one would believe this of "Sir" Paul McCartney. He is an "idol".
Funny, out of all the Beatles, he is the one I always disliked because of his arrogance. Always felt there was something dark about him. He needed to marry a disabled woman to show to the world just what a great guy he was. Who would then think he is a wife abuser?

I was married to one. He was a prince who turned into a demon. A fairytale turned to my worst nightmare.

Some of the details may be a little overexaggurated but I believe they are real occurrences.

When a man feels powerful in everyway, he will find himself a victim to destroy.

Paul McCartney is an old man now. Is losing his looks, his appeal. His daughter stops at nothing to interfere in his life to make it miserable.

Yes, he did abuse Linda, but she didn't need him. He could not afford the bad publicity then and needed to make his fortune. Now he needs no one. He is "Sir".

I grew up in England in my youth. At 14 I saw the Beatles perform at the BBC theatre in Manchester before they were popular.

I did not like Heather at first, but no woman deserves to be put through this kind of humility.

Afterall PM is a "Sir" and should have some class in the way he conducts himself and treats his wife. Ex to be or not.

Goes to show you that no title or money will give you class or make you a gentleman.

Heather will not be treated faiirly in the divorce settlement because she up against a ruthless scab, who drowns his sorrows in wine and drugs and gets his cowardly kicks on abusing his wife. You can't take the trash from the trailer and put it into the mansion and expect it not to smell.

2927 days ago
103.

Sharon    

This i so bullsh*t.She make it out like she is a weak victim.She i s a activist,not a simple nobody.She took on big companies for the name of animal right and land mine victim.If Paul really abuse her,i don't think she is that kind of woman take it laying down.
It all about money?Don't buy it unlest she have something to show she i really been abused by Paul.Some police report or photos.

2927 days ago
104.

Lisha    

It seems like an abused woman's story. As a person who has worked with a hundred abused and battered women, it may be true. It simply says Paul is a brute. the fact that he didnt have her sign a prenup means he felt he had a certain level of control over her and there was no need. He had access to hundreds of beautiful 50-60 year old women but he wanted someone beautiful and submissive. Great he had money, but rich men should get married too. She wasnt starving when she met him.
The poorer partner does become involved in the wealth of the relationship. If you are a millionare almost billionaire, you will never find someone as rich as you. Plus, someone who is rich, and young, and beautiful would want a young beautiful man. Paris Hilton, and the other heiresses of the world would not marry Paul, take his crap and pop out a baby quick for him to make him feel young again. Rich women who marry handsome young men and then divorce pay up too. Its not fair to promise me a castle forever and then start showing out " in the style you have become accustomed to" is what you get after divorcing a richer spouse.
Paul should have found a 60 year old widow with a little money and prestige, treated her nice and lived his life in peace. Heather should have found a nice 40 year old accountant who treated her like a queen and lived in peace. I wish them both the best, however, I do think Heather should get 20 percent and joint of the child.

2927 days ago
105.

Janet    

Heather is following in Sara Evan's path. At least Paul is decent enough to respond in court rather in the tabloids. I don't trust people who try to get public opinion on their side, it seems that they know that they will lose the private battle and are trying to do as much damage as they can before they go down.

2927 days ago
Previous 15 Comments | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | Most Recent | Next 15 Comments

Around The Web