Heather Mills’ self-serving public statements demonstrate two major themes: lack of justification of behaviors toward her and minimization and justification of her behaviors toward Sir Paul and others. Ms. Mills is similar to men who are in batterer intervention programs — both display this type of self-deception, as reported by Smith (full cite below). From the judgment:
280. In her oral submissions to me on 11 February 2008 the wife adopted her skeleton argument on conduct which I have carefully read. She submitted it was unjust/inequitable to disregard the husband’s conduct. She dwelt at great length on the allegations in her Cross-Petition, in particular the alleged assault by the husband on her on 25 April 2006. From June 2006 the husband had plotted against her. He had demolished The Cabin and locked her out of his homes. She made an allegation of bad behaviour by the husband when he collected Beatrice on one occasion. There were other allegations of misconduct put forward by the wife to illustrate her case that the husband had made her an object of a hate campaign in the media. She confirmed to me that if the husband dropped his conduct allegations, she would drop hers.
* * *
289. So far as the husband’s allegations are concerned it is instructive to look at the husband’s affidavit of 8 January 2008. Although Mr Mostyn seeks to try to compartmentalise the wife’s conduct into three distinct episodes, they are in reality examples of what the husband at paragraph 141 says is the wife’s campaign since separation of trying to cause him harm, by portraying herself as the victim and he as the monster. At paragraph 176 he returns to the theme of her “concerted campaign” as follows:
“I do believe that Heather’s misconduct since our separation, her concerted campaign to destroy my reputation through leaks, lies and breaches of confidentiality, should be taken into account by the Court to reduce the award she could otherwise have expected to receive. It will be for my legal representatives to explain this further.”
290. The reality is that the husband’s case is no more than the other side of the coin. On one side is the wife’s case of the husband running a media campaign to smear her; on the other is the husband’s case that it is the wife who is running a media campaign to smear him.
* * *
293. As to the telephone bugging episode in June 2006, the wife denies bugging the husband’s telephone line in June 2006. In the conversation, as reported in the Sunday Mirror article of 9 July 2006, it is allegedly Stella, not the husband, who castigates the wife. I reject the notion that simply because the wife may have committed a serious criminal offence of bugging, that alone amounts to conduct relevant under (g). Furthermore, and centrally to my mind, this episode is part of the husband’s overall complaint that this illustrates, and is part of, the wife’s campaign to discredit him. Both the wife and the husband accuse each other of conducting a campaign of harassment and vilification. The reality is that if I let the husband deploy a case about bugging telephones together with subsequent release of them to the press, this will open up a can of worms and the litigation may inevitably snowball with claim and counter claim.
Justice Bennet – no no no. You don’t want to deal with bad conduct because it will make the case bigger? No, holding Ms. Mills accountable now will forever make their child’s life easier: Ms. Mills now has the message that she can get away with anything.
This is not “two to tango” — this is relational aggression and bullying by Ms. Mills against Sir Paul, and her criminal conduct if true is something that must be referred to the criminal division. It seems that Sir Paul, in attempting to mitigate damage to his reputation, attempted to discredit the source. (Rightly so, imo). This is not a “battle” it is an act of self-defense.
To me, this demonstrates what result Ms. Mills is shooting for: being right and punishing Sir Paul — a vindictive motive, to be sure. It’s not having the money that’s important, it’s taking the money – from him. That’s the thing about personality disorders – when I talk to someone who I suspect is so afflicted, they present this story that hangs together. Then, when viewed in the context of objective fact, their story is so far off that it it looks like they are pathological liars or else disconnected with reality. What is the biological basis for this overwhelming need to blame others? Is it anosognosia? I’m going to figure that one out..
So perhaps not surprisingly, there is to be a later libel trial between Ms. Mills and some of the tabloids — the central focus of which will be Ms. Mills allegations of Sir Paul’s behavior. So not only does Sir Paul have to pay his abuser, but he also has to put up with being dragged through the mud yet again in the libel trial — to which he isn’t even a party. Judge Bennett and all the justices — step up to the plate, shut this down, issue protective orders and enforce criminal sanctions for violating gag orders. Ms. Mills end game is to tarnish the reputation of Sir Paul, and as of now she knows that she can do that and get away with it without any jail time.
In my opinion, Sir Paul gave her the money just to go away (sadly). It won’t work, imo. Ms. Mills will spend the rest of her life proclaiming how “victimized” she was. The good news is that their daughter will have (what looks like) at least one “normal” side of the family, which is more than a lot of children have. Any attempts to alienate the child from Sir Paul will probably fall flat.
If I sound overly activist, it’s because I’ve had personal and professional experiences with this type of person — which I won’t detail here. I had assumed their motives were money. Wrong. The pathology requires self-validation regardless of harm done to innocent people. My family members and professional colleagues who demonstrate this kind of behavior ultimately became outcasts in their social groups, but it took about 4-5 years. It was difficult, but I managed to never respond to smears against me personally or professionally.
Fortunately I don’t have a rock star life, so there wasn’t much fodder from which to make stuff up — but I did have key stroke logging software installed on my computer, harassment in the form of phone calls which couldn’t be traced, vandalism to my home, attempts to steal my identity to tarnish my credit record . . . all of which I kept quiet about. And it could have turned criminal: at the time the key stroke logger software was installed, I was working on sensitive M&A materials. Had anyone traded stock on that information, I would probably have been criminally charged. So this stuff isn’t just “two to tango” — it is aggression just as though you are mugged in a back alley. From where I sit, in my admittedly biased viewpoint, Sir Paul is victimized, Ms. Mills is on the attack, and she must be shut down swiftly and severely. Justice Bennett — you enlarged your court’s docket by inaction. Maybe your case won’t be bigger, but by refusing to rule that the wiretapping was criminal, you just passed the “full employment for PR flack” act. Shut Ms. Mills down now.
My experiences were pre-2002, and there was virtually no internet information about personality disorders. Hence my own motivation for trying to get the word out here — I think educating people is important. If this were a commercial case, no question, there would be criminal sanctions. See, e.g., H-P (pretexting); Anthony Pellicano (wiretapping), the backdating cases, and any number of other cases. Our courts, and the courts in England, don’t get that.
Smith, M.E. (2007). Self-Deception Among Men Who Are Mandated to Attend a Batterer Intervention Program. Perspectives In Psychiatric Care, 43(4), 193-203. DOI: 10.1111/j.1744-6163.2007.00134.x