Heather Mills has proof that Mccartney attacked her

[Roon]

Heather Mills has taped evidence to back up claims that Sir Paul McCartney physically attacked her, say friends.

When her explosive court divorce papers accused the ex-Beatle of violently attacking her during their four year marriage she was branded a 'fantasist' and a 'liar'.

But, according to supporters of Miss Mills, she is ready - and able - to back up her claims with recorded, indisputable evidence.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/showbiz/showbiznews.html?in_article_id=411765&in_page_id=1773&ico=Homepage&icl=TabModule&icc=NEWS&ct=5

[Darth_Kitten]

1. What gets me is how Paul has bought good press for years...

yet hardly anybody is really on to him. He was always the Beatles' best spokesperson, but that hardly translates into being great husband material.

I hope she stands up for herself, I like her style!

[L A Woman]

2. Funny how Beatles' wives are so often vilified...

It's as if the Beatles are Gods and Evil Lilith was sent to bring them down. These are moderately talented musicians, heavily influenced by R&B artists (REALLY talented people), whose lyrics were a result more of drugs than talent, who were cute and came along at the exact right time. Big deal. They are still human and susceptible to addictions and bad marriages and bad behavior.

Paul could be a perfectly nice guy when he's sober and quite the opposite when he isn't.

[Darth_Kitten]

3. The other Beatles were less than stellar husbands so...

why do people automatically jump to Paul's defense? (that's what gets me, she's an automatic gold-digger and he's some kind of saint)

I've read some bios and books about the Beatles, they didn't have happy, secure marriages. Hardly perfect husband material, but most people don't realize that.

I don't know, I feel for Heather, she has to fight uphill to constantly have to defend herself. I also find some of the comments on her on the internet to be quite misogynistic. It's very telling. Heather apparently also tried to get along with Paul's vicious little brat, Stella, but to no avail.

It seems Stella is rather obsessed with Heather. Like get over yourself, child. :eyes:

[Susang]

4. "Vicious little brat?" "Child"

Said about a 35 year old woman? Stella McCartney was born in 1971, only three years after Ms. Mills. No, calling her those names is not misognynistic at all! How old does one have to be to be an adult woman around here? :eyes:

How would you feel if your father was essentially marrying someone your own age? At least give the bratty child as much the benefit of the doubt as you're giving Ms Mills. Or is that too much to ask on the internet?

[Darth_Kitten]

10. I'm hardly misogynistic.......

Sorry, but when you act like a spoiled baby, act petulant,cruel and unfair, you deserve to be called a spoiled baby who needs to get over herself.

Maybe if my father was marrying somebody near my age I would take it up with HIM and not HER.


I have given Stella the benefit of the doubt, but she was obviously ungrateful. Next. :eyes:

[Susang]

12. I was making a point

You can't call other people's remarks misogynistic when your remarks are hardly female-friendly. Well, maybe you can, but I certainly wouldn't.

As for Stella McCartney being obviously ungrateful,petulant,cruel and unfair; since you obviously are personally acquainted with the trio and obviously seem to know all the intimate details involving their personal lives, I guess it's obvious we should all trust your obviously superior knowledge of the situation.

[Darth_Kitten]

15. Chill, it's just my opinion.....

no need to be snarky. :(

[Left Is Write]

19. It might have been extra difficult for her also, because...

she had lost her mother to cancer just a few years earlier, possibly making the remarriage harder for her than if her parents had been divorced.

I don't know this obviously, just putting it out there of an example of how we don't know other people's pain.

[Darth_Kitten]

26. Then wouldn't she strike out at her father?

I don't know.......she just seems to be doing some pretty malicious things (I surf the net a lot) so she's coming across as a totally unsympathetic character. :(

[Left Is Write]

28. I have no idea.

I've never been in that situation, but it doesn't seem out of the realm of possibility that if a person were in pain and anger over a widowed parent's remarriage, she might transfer those feelings to the person she believes is taking her deceased parent's place.

I'm not saying that's what's happened here. I have no idea what Stella McCartney's personal feelings are about her mother, her father, or her stepmother. I'm simply positing that such a situation is rife with potential hurt and underlying anger.

[springhill]

42. Maybe she just didn't like her...........

and maybe her instincts were right.

[WCGreen]

25. Moderatly talented...

Well, you have to put them in context with the times to really understand just how much they evolutionized pop music...

Oh and yea, the R&B musicians stole their riffs from hill music which came from Scotland and England...

[elocs]

5. Nobody "knows" anything yet, do they? There are only accusations.

No, the Beatles were not stellar husbands, but Paul did manage to stay married to the same woman for as long as she lived. He certainly seemed to be still in the grieving stage over the loss of his wife when he met Heather. It also was probably a plus to Paul that Heather professed not to be a Beatles' fan, so it may have made him think she was not after his money. He will undoubtedly pay dearly for not having a prenuptial agreement with her. Heather could have come out of the marriage with an amicable divorce and with millions of dollars or pounds and her reputation with the millions of Beatles' fans around the world would have been preserved. As it stands now, she may come away with much more money, but be one of the most hated women in the world which will not do much for her ability to raise money for her favorite charities.

[idgiehkt]

8. if her not being a "Beatles fan" made him think she's not after his

money, then he's stupider than I thought.

I really like Mills, given a choice between the two she'd win in a walk, but...you know, I'm not much of a skyscraper fan, but if I marry Donald Trump any time soon he should probably have a prenup, lol.

"Heather could have come out of the marriage with an amicable divorce and with millions of dollars or pounds and her reputation with the millions of Beatles' fans around the world would have been preserved."

Heather's been shredded by the British press for years, lol, so this is no new development. Frankly who gives a rat's ass what 'Beatles fans' think about Heather Mills. They hate her just like they vilified Yoko Ono and like Nirvana fans vilified Courtney love. Any time a woman marries a famous man that latently bi-sexual or gay men the world over want to fuck there's going to be hell to pay for it in the public sphere. Hell, look what they did to Mary Magdalene, they made a high priestess into a whore out of pure spite.

"As it stands now, she may come away with much more money, but be one of the most hated women in the world which will not do much for her ability to raise money for her favorite charities."

Wow, if that's true, the a whole bunch of people seriously need to get a life, lol. I'm not sure how much money she will need to raise, anyway, after she's got her portion of the divorce settlement.

[Susang]

13. At this point the whole thing is gossip

From both sides. Nobody that's not directly involved can or will know anything. It's all speculation and gossip fueled by leaks by both camps. Not uncommon in nasty divorces. Wait until they bring the baby into it. Trust me, it's coming.

And to be honest, it's all pretty boring. He said, she said... After all these years, you'd think they could come up with a more interesting scandal than this.

[idgiehkt]

17. I find it interesting, frankly.

The whole dynamic of the demonized woman that marries a revered public figure, it's like some kind of pop culture archetype.

Regarding custody, the baby is in this, imho. It probably wasn't going to go this way, and the fact that it all of a sudden has says one thing to me, which is that Heather is saying 'threaten my custody and I will fuck you so hard you will rue the day..." and she is. One thing you can say about her, she's an incredibly shrewd woman.

[electron_blue]

22. that's exactly what I was thinking (about custody)

[elocs]

39. Yeah, wild accusations in a divorce case.

What a new and novel concept.

[mduffy31]

6. Lets just say this

She better be able to prove what she is saying.

[2bfree]

7. I won't believe it until there is some proof.

:(

[noamnety]

9. Cult of personality

People who love Bush have a hard time believing he could do any wrong.
People who love Kerry have a hard time believing he could do any wrong.
People who love the founding fathers have a hard time believing they could do any wrong.

History books are written from the perspective that historical figures are either GOOD or BAD and everything they do falls into one category or the other, with no cross over, ever. Say something good about Saddam (maybe about literacy rates or women's rights) and BAM! you are supporting every aspect of him and his government.

Men on the left are abusive toward women, just as men on the right are abusive toward women. Having lefty politics and a guitar doesn't make you a saint in your private relationships. It's a dangerous thing for women to be told they don't have the right to talk about abuse so long as the men that abused them are famous, or well-liked in one circle or another.

[undeterred]

11. Excellent points.

Men are incapable of believing that their male friends could be abusive. A woman who accuses their buddy is automatically suspected of lying or manipulating because they know their buddy could never do something like that.

[blondeatlast]

36. Wish I'd said that, but I'm glad someone did. Thank you for some

much needed perspective. DU is full of personality cultists of all stripes.

(Cue horrible Primary Season 2004 flashback--aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrggggghhhh!) :hide:

[springhill]

43. As of now........

there is No proof that he abused her. Can't you at least wait until it is either conformed or debunked before you automatically assume that it is true?

[noamnety]

49. Ah, but it doesn't matter

People have already made it clear she's hated either way, and Paul is the victim either way. If she can't produce hard evidence, that's not a lack of evidence; it's "debunked." If she does produce evidence that can't be refuted, watch what happens - she'll be the one at fault for video taping such a thing in the first place.

Evil manipulative shrew if she doesn't prove it, evil manipulative shrew if she does. Women get the message loud and clear that reporting such things puts them on trial - and it's the sort of trial that can never be won. Even if the tapes show something very ugly in Paul that can't be denied, people will still put the blame on her for "asking for it," provoking him to hit her (?!), and then for not leaving immediately.

[springhill]

50. Oh that is just baloney.........

if there is proof that he did indeed abuse her, he will be toast.

[springhill]

51. So when a child accuses someone of abusing them.........

or when a wife says a husband abuses them, you think there should be no proof? If there is cooberating witnesses to her being abused then it will come out. While, of course, if it happened, then he should face the music, whatever that entails. But false allegations are far from being unheard of and has ruined many people's lives and reputations.

[noamnety]

54. If there are no witnesses

then what? The abused person has a moral obligation to not talk about it?

Are you thinking most abusive spouses commit the abuses in front of witnesses? I'm thinking they do it in private.

[springhill]

60. I didn't say that........

what I am saying is that there needs to be a thorough investigation before people jump to conclusions one way or another. That's all.

[xchrom]

14. hmmmm? she recorded these episodes?

things that make you go hmmmm.

[Left Is Write]

20. It definitely makes me go "hmmmm."

[philosophie_en_rose]

23. Who would believe her, if she didn't?

:shrug:

Sometimes desperate people are pushed to desperate actions.

[xchrom]

48. hey -- when you say bad things about famous people --

there's always some idiot very willing to listen and believe.

[skygazer]

16. Yes, well, if the Daily Mail said it, it must be true

:eyes:

[leeroysphitz]

18. Who doesn't?

[hickman]

21. I don't care. She's not morally entitled to half his money.

As far as I concerned, she's only entitled to half of anything he made while they were married. The child should be entitled to an equal share of any trust fund set up for Paul's kids. Everything else should be his and his alone. Going for the big bucks, made by Paul and Linda, is what makes her a golddigger.

[electron_blue]

24. what about child support? What about alimony?

What about pain and suffering from domestic abuse (assuming those charges pan out)?

[hickman]

29. Child support yes. Why alimony?

If the charges are proven then a lump sum depending on whether it was a one time incident or an ongoing abuse. Nobody turns into an abuser overnight. She's going to have to prove that Linda was abused too.

[philosophie_en_rose]

32. Why would she have to prove Linda was abused?

That's a high burden for abused women. And whether he abused anyone else does not mean that he abused her, nor does it mean that he didn't.

Alimony is designed to protect the spouse that did not earn as much income in a marriage, because - in a marriage - your name does not have to be on the paycheck to have been a part of that effort. (i.e. staying home with a young daughter allows the other spouse to work).

I don't know what happened to Heather Mills, but I can see now that she was wise to document what happened to her (if anything).

[hickman]

35. How often does a 60yr old with no history of abusing women,

suddenly start the beatings? I also said that I believe she is entitled to half of anything he made during the marriage. Not the money he made while married to Linda. For the love of Mike, why would she have any rights to the money Linda made which is what this is all about. Linda went on the road in a band, raised her children, her father and brother managed the money, and she started her own company for vegan frozen food. Why the hell is Heather Mills entitled to this money? She's not.

[electron_blue]

33. no she doesn't have to prove he abused Linda.

People absolutely do turn into abusers overnight. Abusers are famous for putting on a well-behaved act until after marriage or even until a year or two after marriage and then turning on the switch as it were.

As for alimony, I don't know. As I understand it, in recent years it's more appropriate for longer term relationships, esp if one person 'gave up' their career for another. Obviously she did not get Paul to where he was today, but she may have given up many of her own career opportunities in the last few years. One could argue that she'll have *more* career opportunities after having been married to him, on name recognition alone.

[Darth_Kitten]

27. Who knows how much she is asking for?

But yes, she is entitled to a settlement.

[hickman]

30. Why?

She has a proven ability to support herself. Why should he pay her off? Why does he need to hand over hugh amounts of money to her? The only one he owes is the little girl, Beatrice.

[northzax]

56. cause that's the law?

and it was the law when they got married, and he chose, for whatever stupid reason, not to protect his fortune in the event that his second marriage went downhill.

[petronius]

31. When you're being accused of violence against your wife,

it's probably best if your friends don't describe you as being "incandescent with rage" in private... :rofl:

[idgiehkt]

37. I got a chuckle out of that too.

quite descriptive, lol, and ill-timed.

[cwydro]

53. ditto

[northzax]

57. I don't know

it's best if they don't say it, but if I was accused of beating my girlfriend (on those times I have one) I would be 'incandescent with rage' because I would consider it a personal insult on the level of calling me a pedophile or rapist.

[johnnie]

34. Good for her

I hope she gets her $12,000,000,000. She deserves it. She worked so hard for her money. And it's too bad Sir Paul was stupid enough to believe she loved him for his personality.

Hey Paul, a word of wisdom for your buddy Johnnie, never trust anyone.

[Lethe]

38. i don't know anything about this situation

but i always thought Paul has sucked. His sister described him as a total autocrat who cannot live with anyone who doesn't bow down to his will. Everytime Paul says something in public and I hear it, i just cringe. He's an idiot.

George was always my fav.

[idgiehkt]

40. I always got that vibe from Linda

that she was kind of like the wife in "One True Thing"

[springhill]

44. You got that vibe from Linda?

Where is the hell did you get that vibe? When you had lunch with her? From everything I have ever read about their marriage, they were very much in love. Geez, all the speculation with no proof just astounds me.

[idgiehkt]

46. you are right, I did not know her.

but I was a fan of hers because of her vegetarianism and stance on animal rights, so I followed what she did including her cookbooks because I worked in a health food store kitchen in the 90's. If you've watched that movie you know that in the beginning the Dad is larger than life and the Mom is kind of in the background as this conventional character that supposedly isn't very interesting, as seen through the eyes of the daughter, and by the end of the movie it's shown how the Dad is just very, very, fallible, and very much a facade, and the Mom is really the rock and what holds everything together, and not only that, but she also knows the EXACT failings of her husband and looks the other way because to her the loss of him and the marriage would be a worse fate than living with the pain of his flaws. I always got the vibe from Linda that she was that kind of person, at least that's the way she came across in the media. So a less malleable, younger, less in love person might not have been willing or able to play that role that Linda might perhaps have played. That is one movie that I thought I would loathe with every cell of my body but I really ended up loving it.

[elocs]

41. Well, this is America

and you don't have to know anything about a situation to give an opinion. Congratulations.

[Lethe]

45. yes! do i get my own cable show now?

my voice is less grating than Rita Cosby's.

:evilgrin:

[elocs]

47. Yes, everyone should have their own cable show at least once. n/t

[Frank Cannon]

52. How about if we let the court system sort it out?

I know that seems like an outrageous proposal, but I'm just sayin'.

I like the Beatles' music, but I'm willing to admit that the members of the group were/are either great saints or horrible sinners--maybe a mix of both or somewhere in between.

[noamnety]

55. Yes, with their 2% sentencing rate

that sounds like the way to go.

[skygazer]

58. Much better to try them on a message board

With no facts, just a lot of "feelings" and gossip from tabloids. Certainly fairer than any court could be.

I suppose I have to add this - :sarcasm:

[noamnety]

59. If the message boards have a 50% chance of being right

That's closer to accurate than the court conviction rate is. Just sayin'.