• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

Heather: I've got secret tapes of violent rows with Macca

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Heather: I've got secret tapes of violent rows with Macca

    Heather: I've got secret tapes of violent rows with Macca

    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.

    'Suggestions that Heather simply made up the accusations about Paul attacking her are, understandably, incredibly upsetting for her,' said a source close to Miss Mills.

    'Whatever she says or does now, Heather feels she cannot win - people are siding with Paul.

    'But she is confident that she can actually prove some of these claims. Without going into specifics, she reckons to have tangible evidence showing that Paul not only verbally attacked her but was also physically aggressive.

    'As well as charting much of the marriage breakdown on her digital camcorder, and having witnesses who will testify to her claims, Heather has another killer piece of evidence in the form of an audio recording.

    'She is being quite cagey about it, but it seems that she may also have some kind of video recording of the pair rowing. (AtW: looks like she is pretty prepared, eh?)

    'It has never been Heather's intention to use the tapes, which she feels prove that Paul raised his hands to her, but if she has to, she will. It is dynamite stuff and if used, really could destroy Paul.'

    The existence of the 'Macca tapes' emerged as Miss Mills visited her London lawyers Mishcon de Reya yesterday. Smartly dressed in green velvet jacket and matching beret and skirt, she left their offices saying nothing.

    But the bitter war of words will only intensify with news of the potentially vital tapes.

    This latest revelation comes five days after the court papers accusing McCartney of repeated violence against his 38-year-old wife were published.

    It is claimed in the documents - exclusively revealed by the Daily Mail - that the former Beatle, 64, subjected Miss Mills to four violent attacks.

    In one such outburst he allegedly stabbed her in the arm with a broken wine glass and in another he is accused of pushing her into the bath, causing her 'shock and distress'.

    Sir Paul has already flatly denied the allegations and issued a defiant statement saying he will 'vigorously and appropriately' contest her claims all the way to court if necessary.

    While publicly maintaining a dignified silence friends say he is privately 'incandescent with rage' at the allegations.

    It is not known which alleged attack, or attacks, Miss Mills is thought to have documented on tape.

    Such a recording is likely to be used by Miss Mills' lawyers as a key bargaining tool in the increasingly acrimonious £825 milion divorce battle.

    But news of the recorded evidence follows an alleged phone bugging incident in which a private conversation between McCartney and his fashion designer daughter, Stella, was taped.

    In it, the pair are understood to talk explicitly - and in derogatory terms - about Miss Mills. Over the past year Miss Mills has also been seen using a hand-held video recorder.

    Whilst initially it was used to film the paparazzi, she has reportedly been using it over the past few months to film, in technicolour detail, the breakdown of her marriage.

    Again, if called upon, it could be used in court to help Miss Mills gain a larger divorce settlement.

    And earlier this week, former newspaper editor Piers Morgan - who introduced McCartney to his second wife - revealed the existence of a mobile phone answerphone recording in which the singer is heard 'pleading' with his wife.

    The message was apparently left by McCartney following a furious row with Miss Mills which prompted the former model to flee to India.

    Miss Mills's spokesman refused to deny that his client had video or audio taped evidence supporting the court paper claims.

    Last night he said: 'Heather has got independent corroborating evidence for what she has claimed. 'In some cases this is in the form of witnesses but she has other corroborating evidence, but I'm not sure what it is.'

    Rumours that Miss Mills hit McCartney - not the other way around - have been vehemently denied by her spokesman.

    One report yesterday alleged that she hit her first husband. Her former sister in law , Diana Karmal, said she saw Miss Mills slap Alfie Karmal during a row.

    Sir Paul's legal team are likely to closely study a book written by Miss Mills - Life Balance: The Essential Keys To A Lifetime Of Well Being - which may contradict some of her court claims.

    In the court document she claims he refused to allow her to surface in the mornings before he was ready.

    In her book Miss Mills writes: 'As a working wife and mother I have learnt that setting the alarm 30 minutes earlier each morning can make all the difference. It allows me little bit of personal space before the day begins.'

    And at the time of publication - within days of the couple announcing their separation - Miss Mills writes in her book that she has 'a very loving and open relationship' with her husband.

    In contrast, the leaked court papers suggest that at this time Miss Mills 'avers that the marriage [had] irretrievably broken down.'

    In the legal documents Miss Mills also complains that she was expected to prepare two dinners every night, one for baby Beatrice and one for McCartney, without assistance 'despite her disability.' ( You can't make this up! )

    But in an interview with Michael Parkinson in 2003 she praises her husband for 'bringing me breakfast in bed every morning, no matter how he feels. And I do the dinner, so we've got that agreement. It's thoughtfulness.'

    -----

    Christ, just how many women would be prepared to cook 10 dinners a day for Sir Paul? It's not like she did not have hands or was paralised in a wheel chair.

    #2
    All sounds like she is delusional, or it's her legal team / pr desperately trying to take the sting out of the backlash against the leaked court papers, and it sounds like a pretty amateurish attempt, at that.

    I wouldn't be at all surprised if the only tapes that surface around the time of the court case are dodgy ones of her from her younger days.
    Vieze Oude Man

    Comment


      #3
      I am suprised Muslims aren't being blamed for this as well.

      Comment


        #4
        Although I think Heather Mills is a scheming, manipulative money grabbing gold digger with a dubious past who probably anticipated the marriage wouldn't last even as she walked up the aisle, I equally believe that Paul McCartney is an obsessive, traditionalist bastard of the highest order. At least that's the way he comes across to me. I also suspect he's as tight as a duck's backside and meanspirited with it, and probably gave Heather some sort of degrading 'dress allowance' or something. I can imagine him on the internet comparing the prices of various brands of tights for what he would need to pay for half a packet of stockings.

        What's all this about her cooking the dinner? Couldn't he afford to fork out for a housekeeper? What was all that about rowing over a near empty bleach bottle she threw out. I rest my case. Linda was clever - at least she managed to generate her own brand of tasteless veggie burgers to keep her in stockings.

        Comment


          #5
          Originally posted by Denny
          I equally believe that Paul McCartney is an obsessive, traditionalist bastard of the highest order.
          Yes, most likely - but this does not mean she should get even £1 mln of his money. I never liked Paul, but the law should put an end to gold digging - everyone keeps their own money, and £1 mln cap on any extra payments: if the wife does not like this, then she should get a job and see how long it takes to actually make a mil, once she achieves that an extra £1 mln should be made available to her.

          Comment


            #6
            'Poof' goes another million - she's got crap advisors. There's no way she can screw him for more money (by agreeing to a confidentiality clause) when all of this is splashed in the papers...
            "I can put any old tat in my sig, put quotes around it and attribute to someone of whom I've heard, to make it sound true."
            - Voltaire/Benjamin Franklin/Anne Frank...

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by AtW
              Yes, most likely - but this does not mean she should get even £1 mln of his money. I never liked Paul, but the law should put an end to gold digging - everyone keeps their own money, and £1 mln cap on any extra payments: if the wife does not like this, then she should get a job and see how long it takes to actually make a mil, once she achieves that an extra £1 mln should be made available to her.
              It's not as simple as that though. The law still recognises that women 'sacrifice' their lives for their husbands by giving up what could otherwise be a successful independent life by making it on their own not tied down with children. Wives also take on the status of their husband. Males, however, are viewed as continuing on as before after they marry - onwards and upwards - with the additional benefit of a helpmate in tow to cook the dinner after his hard day at the office, even after children come along. This so called natural order of things is still not the case with successful career women though, and very few men, even in this enlightened and liberated age, are prepared to be househusbands and full time child carers in the way that it is still deemed 'natural' and proper for women to be.

              Even though the above scenario is not the case with Macca and Mills, because Macca made his fortune long before Mills came along, the concept of marriage is still about 'bestowing your worldly goods' as well so everything becomes shared in principle and becomes 'their's' not his - a view Macca must have believed too as he went into the relationship whith romantic notions of them both enjoying everlasting happinness and, of course, no pre-nup in place. There's also the added complication of his status - which is enormous as he has a title and high social standing which Heather would have to give up after the divorce. Heather also gave him another child. Therefore, he should take some responsibility and blame for the situation he's in now and expect to pay for all of these things.

              I agree though, the idea that she should could get a huge multi-million fortune is disproportionate to what she has put into the marriage but it's not just about that - it's about what she loses by divorcing him. In this case - money and high social status and a title to boot. That's worth buckets.

              The kid also needs providing for as he grows and if she gains full custody and if Paul is such a bastard she is entitled to be compensated for the lifestyle she can no longer expect being married to him in better circumstances that reflected the vows he took to care, keep and cherish her forever.

              I would say about 10m and a decent house for her feels about right as she could make a huge fortune flogging a book about their relationship and still benefit from her past association from him as his wife - that could make her millions too. Not bad work if you can get it. What she won't ever get, though, is self respect and recognition for her own achievements that are somehow not tied to her association with him.

              10m is enough to give herself and her child a secure future until he is grown, compensation for the lifestyle she's no longer able to have plus financial independence for herself. The kid would obviously get a lot more in the long run by benefitting from his inheritance and a trust fund set up in the meantime.

              However, I suspect she will get more .....much, much, more.
              Last edited by Denny; 21 October 2006, 21:04.

              Comment


                #8
                The point is, it is not 'her child', "it" is their child... and I cannot see him, based on previous behaviour, ever leaving them wanting.

                This is what Fathers for Justice campaign about - the view that a woman, seemingly no matter how she behaves, is naturally the preferred parent, and that the man has obligations, but not rights.

                As for her career - I guess entertaining Arab Princes had to go when she got married. Not unreasonable really.

                It is pretty obvious she would have walked away a millionairess without saying a word, and just citing 'irreconcilable differences', and remained relatively 'unscathed'. Why she has stooped to this, I cannot understand, as she will forever be known as the 'slappa who did macca' to estimable Sun readers.

                The best outcome would be to just pay her a year of her going rate as a 'party girl', make sure her and the child have a house, the child has a good education, and is made to feel part of the larger family without any stigma attached. I feel sorry for the kid.
                Vieze Oude Man

                Comment


                  #9
                  Originally posted by Denny
                  The law still recognises that women 'sacrifice' their lives for their husbands by giving up what could otherwise be a successful independent life by making it on their own not tied down with children.
                  £1 mln is a good cap - most women or even men would not earn that much over period of their life, well, they will but never feel like it.

                  Divorce rules in the UK totally shafted - why should there be 50-50 split even if most of the money were earned well before marriage? This is especially true in case of rich people who may have earned bulk of money way before marriage.

                  And to add insult to injury prenup agreements don't work here either - it's like middle ages.

                  She may lose a lot by divorce, but that's her problem - maybe she should have cooked without complaints and do other things, if that's too much for her, than fair enough - she made her choice and money should not even come into the arguement.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Originally posted by mcquiggd
                    Why she has stooped to this, I cannot understand.....
                    It's because she's a greedy female. Hell hath no fury etc .....

                    And her real name's not Heather anyway, it's Peggy

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X