John Edwards' betrayed wife 'tore off bra'

[Poll_Blind]

From the BBC:
[div class="excerpt" style="border-left: 1px solid #bfbfbf; border-top: 1px solid #bfbfbf; border-right: 1px solid #bfbfbf; border-radius: 0.3077em 0.3077em 0em 0em; box-shadow: 2px 2px 6px #bfbfbf;"]John Edwards' betrayed wife 'tore off bra'[div class="excerpt" style="border-left: 1px solid #bfbfbf; border-bottom: 1px solid #bfbfbf; border-right: 1px solid #bfbfbf; border-radius: 0em 0em 0.3077em 0.3077em; background-color: #f4f4f4; box-shadow: 2px 2px 6px #bfbfbf;"]Former US presidential candidate John Edwards' wife ripped off her shirt and bra in a confrontation with her husband over his affair, a court has heard.

--snip--

Ms Reynolds, 37, said the confrontation happened at Raleigh-Durham International Airport in North Carolina in October 2007. The court heard that Mrs Edwards stormed off and collapsed outside a private aircraft hangar.

Ms Reynolds said that she, along with another woman, helped Mrs Edwards get to a bathroom and calmed her down, but Mrs Edwards went outside again to find her husband.

Ms Reynolds said Mrs Edwards had screamed: "You don't see me anymore." Then she took off her shirt and bra, exposing herself to her husband in front of his staffers, the court heard.

"He didn't have much of a reaction," Ms Reynolds said.

More at the link. Worth the read.

Elizabeth Edwards did what I probably would have if I were a woman in that situation.

That's just terrible. RIP, Elizabeth.

PB

[HiPointDem]

1. Call me naive, but I don't believe it.

1. Mrs. Edwards was a political wife. Part of the deal is that you don't make scenes.

2. Mrs. Edwards personally did not appear to be the kind of person who would make scenes anyway, particularly scenes where she ripped off her clothing. She appeared to be the kind of person who would find displaying emotion publicly in that way humiliating and degrading. I have no personal knowledge of her beyond her public persona, but I know plenty of women to whom displaying one's pain in that public way would be unthinkable.

3. She was supporting her husband in public, including posting here, during roughly the same time frame. So why would she be doing that while ripping off her clothing in front of staffers? Doesn't make sense to me.

[Capt. Obvious]

4. This story came out years ago

It was in Game Change IIRC

[HiPointDem]

9. that doesn't make me believe it any more than i did before. it does make me wonder though,

if it's such old news, why is it being introduced as evidence in this trial and what possible relevance does it have to the charges against edwards?

none that i can see.

[Trajan]

26. Im sorry ... But your assertions seem patently ridiculous ...

Really ... Just petty observations from an uninvolved nonparticipant, based on highly personal speculations founded on an essential ignorance of the facts ....

I am not impressed with your rationales .... Obviously .... But hey ... good guesses ?

[karynnj]

31. It goes to what Elizabeth knew when - it is clear that she was at minimum

very aware that it was likely he had continued the affair. She was clearly already in pain over that, so she was not the unsuspecting wife, who would only know if she saw large checks being written by Edwards from his own assets. (As she is KNOWN to have learned he had an affair in late 2006, he could even have told her it was blackmail.)

[karynnj]

30. It doesn't make sense because it was not driven by the rational part of Elizabeth Edwards

I did not believe this when it came out from Game Change (which I did not read). Here however, you have a friend of Elizabeth, who was part of the campaign telling the story on the witness stand.

I didn't believe it because it was humiliating and degrading. It seems an act springing from intense pain. That it occurred when the NE published the story suggests that she was humiliated that her marriage was to exposed as a fraud. This may have been the straw that broke the camel's back. This strong woman was already dealing with whatever pain or side effects she had from cancer, the fear that she would not see her children through their youth, and the knowledge that the person she most trusted betrayed her. She was dealing with all that - and supporting him publicly in his Presidential run. What the story added was the likelihood that JRE's betrayal would be public and she would have the added pain of having the whole world see that her world - that she seemed to be fighting to keep whole - had collapsed.

I don't think any of us could know that we would not have reacted in some way that we could never believe sitting not experiencing all she did. Her husband was 100% in the bubble of his campaign and he likely WAS avoiding spending much private time with Elizabeth. In all campaigns family time is incredibly limited given the demands - even when that time is precious and pleasant. As to publicly supporting Edwards - and doing this before staffers, I suspect that those staffers - closest to JRE - likely knew (or suspected and didn't want to verify) the fact that he was having an ongoing affair. THEY were not going to go to the media with this. My guess is that at that moment - JRE, the campaign and the lead staffers were all seen as pain by Elizabeth.

Consider that when he apologized, Edwards lied about the time frame - in the process, disowning his daughter. I suspect that the reason was not so much the daughter, but the fact that the time frame shows that he was unfaithful at the moment she needed him the most - as she dealt with her mortality and the treatments. He made the point that the affair was when she was in remission - likely to make the admission less damning. Oddly, had he ended both his affair and Presidential run when Elizabeth got that awful diagnosis, he would still be seen as a good, heroic man who put family ahead of ambition - knowing that there were others who could run the country, but only he who care for his wife and family. The mainstream media would never have covered the (shorter) Rielle affair - and with no campaign and no baby, he would not be on trial now.

[Enrique]

35. why would this witness commit perjury?

what would be the motive for fabricating a story under oath, about a scene that was witnessed by multiple people?

[RZM]

44. Public and private personas are quite often day and night

And the latter frequently surprise people who are familiar with the former. That is one reason people are so interested in the tabloids/gossip. It's always interesting to examine that disconnect.

Just reading supreme court decisions, any liberal would think William Rehnquist was the devil. But apparently people who knew him said he was a really nice guy whom just about everybody liked and respected on a personal level.

James Gandolfini (who played Tony Soprano on 'The Sopranos') is a particularly amusing example. We all think of him as the tough mob boss. But have you ever seen an interview with him? 'Awkward' doesn't even begin to describe it. What's doubly ironic is that he describes himself personally as like Woody Allen, which is interesting because he's talking about the public/movie Woody Allen persona. The real Woody Allen was apparently a very good athlete as a young man and not at all intellectual. He claims he flunked out of NYU not because he had this passion for film, but because he wasn't smart enough to cut it.

I suspect this is the case with Elizabeth Edwards. She was very different in private than in public. That's really pretty normal.

[Solomon]

46. Excuse me but Rehnquist was a racist prick. He had

reason to play the nice guy since they let him on that court in spite of his racist background and activities.

[RZM]

48. I didn't say he wasn't

But people seemed to like him personally. Whether he was 'playing the nice guy' or not I don't really know. But if you convince enough people over the years, at what point does it stop mattering whether or not you are playing?

I'm not attempting to defend him here. Just pointing out that he seemed pretty well-liked. Even if you remove him from the discussion, there is no shortage of people with that public/private disconnect.

[cali]

62. but political wives can and do make scenes. Ever hear of Martha Mitchell?

[Fumesucker]

2. "Grandpa, grandma has a new man living at her house"..

That's how I found out after the divorce was finalized that my wife of thirty years had been having an affair for some time before she divorced me, my youngest granddaughter informed me that less than a week after the divorce there was already another man living in the house I once shared with the person I would have died to protect.

The implication I so often read on DU that only men have affairs and only women are hurt by them really ticks me off sometimes no matter how hard I try not to take it personally.

[malaise]

6. You're right

Infidelity is not gender specific.

[seabeyond]

20. with malaise.... not gender specific. women are almost at the same percentage as men. nt

[TahitiNut]

25. As a fellow who twice was married to women with whom I later had "incompatible sleeping habits"

... I hear you loud and clear. There is a tacit presumption that "cheating" is something men do. If told of a divorce due to adultery without any other information, the mind immediately uses the template of a "cheating husband." In any divorce I've ever seen, including my own, all the "mutual friends" become HER friends and HER "support group." It's automatic. The guy, it's assumed, is able to "go it alone." Sure, some more "enlightened" folks will claim they understand that infidelity (i.e. failure of integrity) is equally frequent among men and women ... but that's NOT how folks behave.

Nobody EVER promised me that Life would be Fair. Nonetheless, the bias is egregious.

[TwilightGardener]

36. Ouch. That just sucks.

[laundry_queen]

40. ugh.

I'm sorry you had to go through that also. As a woman who also had a cheating spouse, and then joined a support group to find out that infidelity is not gender specific, I get what you mean. The hurt I've seen knows no gender boundaries.

[SemperEadem]

3. I have been betrayed

and I never would have ripped my shirt and bra off in public in front of my ex or anyone else.

I left with my dignity in tact without public hysterics.

I did my crying at home... then I got over it and moved on. And it was really, really hard, but I did it.

I don't believe that she did this. I think anything to smear her now that she isn't here to defend herself is reprehensible and I don't put it past him to
drive her memory into the ground. That's not to say I think that she was a saint, because I don't. I just don't think she was that far afield of her
sense and dignity to do something so base and "jerry springer-ish".

[HiPointDem]

10. +1.

[msanthrope]

18. I find your assessment of what she did judgmental.

I have no doubt she did it.

But I also would not judge what she did in her grief--showing her husband her cancer-stricken chest might have been what she thought best.

Rather than calling her action "base," and "jerry springer-ish" I see her as terribly hurt.

I won't judge her for that.

[SemperEadem]

55. ooh, someone can't read

I just don't think she was that far afield of her
sense and dignity to do something so base and "jerry springer-ish".

[msanthrope]

67. But she DID do the actions you judged so harshly.

The defense has not disputed the testimony of the witnesses who have testified to this scene. (note the multiple, note that Edwards's defense failed to challenge the dispute.

[Trajan]

27. Some have the patience of Job ....

The rest of us have real, irrational human emotions ....

BTW: To imply she did this is not inherently abusive to her, nor is it a smear .... If the story is true (and I believe it is), then it merely exposes her as a passionate human being who has been betrayed, and will not stand for it ...

I think the better of her ..... She was fearless .....

[FedUpWithIt All]

34. Were you suffering from cancer and involved in a presidential campaign at the time?

If not, then your own experience is not exactly apples to oranges with the high stress and emotions Mrs. Edwards must have been buried under.

[SemperEadem]

56. the issue I'm discussing is betrayal

and the fact that I didn't think that she did this... but that it was an effort to smear her.

guess that part of that post got past you, too...

[FedUpWithIt All]

66. In real life, which she was dealing with cold, you do not just isolate things like that.

Obviously, this is what "got past" you.

The stress she was dealing with was extremely heightened due to the accumulative nature of it and body has distinctive physiological responses to stress, . You would like to isolate one part to make a point and an equal comparison but that isn't the way it works.


It is surreal that i would even need to clarify that.

[CoffeeCat]

42. Yeah, but you didn't have to publicly cheerlead your husband

You may have handled your pain quietly and with dignity--but you didn't have
to go on the campaign trail and talk about how amazing and wonderful your
husband was on a fifty-city tour! Elizabeth Edwards helped to market John
Edwards as a decent family man, and everyone loved her. She was key to
his campaign and she touted him as a political genius, a champion of the poor
and as a loving husband and father.

I'm sure JE's affair was not the beginning of his shenanigans. I bet he wasn't
1/10 as wonderful as that family pretended. Anyone who could cheat on and lie
to their wife--who was dying of cancer, is probably a narcissist.

I'm sure Elizabeth constantly lived with the pain of the unspoken truth about who
her husband really was. I bet it disgusted her.

So yeah--I understand ripping off your shirt and bra and having a meltdown. Hell, I applaud
her for it! Why in the world do we view intense emotions as unhealthy or weakness?? She
was entitled to a major, four-alarm, epic meltdown. Look at everything she endured. And
she was always calm, dignified and measured in interviews--even after the affair came out.

She's entitled to her freak out--and I think I respect her more for having it! She's only human!

[Raine]

74. TOTALLY agree, I'm glad she was able to

let it out and like you I respect her more for it.

[Number23]

75. "She was entitled to a major, four-alarm, epic meltdown. Look at everything she endured."

I really have to agree with everything that you've said.

[Whisp]

65. we all have different reactions to stress

Elizabeth had to put on a face during the campaign when knowing all what was happening around her personal life. It must have been horrible to have to pretend like that in front of everyone. The constant pressure could easily lead to a blow out, I don't find anything unbelievable about that.

I know I've done and said some things that may not be considered 'dignified' by some when I was under extreme pressure or when I was betrayed.

[magical thyme]

70. chemotherapy impacts people's memories and emotions, even after it is over nt

[madrchsod]

5. i doubt she did this

worse thing about this is she is not here to say if it really happened. ms reynolds should have kept her mouth shut because it certainly does`t hurt johnnie boy.

[msanthrope]

7. Ms. Reynolds is under a legal obligation to not keep her mouth shut about her friend.

And the other witnesses who corroborated the testimony are under the same obligation.

[Capt. Obvious]

8. I expect more people to chime in that they don't believe this story

despite it coming out over two years ago and now being entered into the record under oath.

[msanthrope]

15. Well, denial is a powerful thing. That her personal friends have testified to this

obviously doesn't penetrate the narrative.

[HiPointDem]

11. whether or not ms edwards ripped off her bra has fuck all to do with whether edwards used

campaign money to hide his mistress.

[Capt. Obvious]

13. I don't believe Edwards had a mistress

[cynatnite]

16. How do you explain Rielle Hunter getting pregnant by Edwards during the campain? n/t

[Capt. Obvious]

24. that doesn't make me believe it any more than i did before

[karynnj]

33. Are you related to unionworks?

Edwards confessed on national TV that he had an affair and he has said the little girl - with his good looks - is his.

So, what is the deal? - that powerful forces that feared the righteousness of JRE threatened his family unless he agreed to admit to these actions (which he did not do) and Elizabeth, who was dying, agreed to act as if they were true. They found an actress - Rielle - to play the mistress as a completely flaky new age woman. They then found a baby girl likely to superficially resemble Edwards. They also - to completely ruin Edwards - had him push a sycophant Young to accept paternity for a child that was not conceived and then used 2 Edwards donors to give huge sums of money to the actress and young.

Even committed conspiracy buffs will not go for that.

[cynatnite]

37. Even though Edwards admitted the affair and claimed the child as his? n/t

[msanthrope]

14. Actually, it does....the prosecution is doing a great job establishing why John Edwards

then went to such lengths to conceal his affair.

A primary motive?

A cancer-stricken, upset wife who wasn't afraid of making a scene in public.

[cynatnite]

19. They had already established his motives with previous witnesses. n/t

[msanthrope]

22. You think the prosecution is going to leave a stone unturned?

Not likely.

[cynatnite]

38. To me this is just dirty laundry...

They already established he had an affair and the person who handled the money to hide it has testified. That's why I think this testimony was pointless other than to try to get the jury to hate Edwards.

[Bluerthanblue]

50. I agree-

I cannot justify anything John Edwards did concerning the affair he had- but this incident really has nothing to do with whether or not he was using campaign funds inappropriately.

It's solely designed for the shock aspect- Is Edwards on trial for his lack of respect an compassion for his wife? For treating the person he promised to love and cherish like trash? If so, there are many spouses who should be on trial.

[hamsterjill]

53. I agree, as well.

With certainly no thought by the prosecution as to what this might do to Cate Edwards, or other family members of Elizabeth Edwards.

I think it is sensationalism at its best.

[SemperEadem]

57. exactly

it adds nothing but hysterics and emotion to what should be decided upon fact and preponderance of evidence--of which there is more than enough to render a verdict.

[grasswire]

77. the Kenneth Starr playbook of prosecution.

Leave no cigar unturned, leave no humiliation undisclosed.

[customerserviceguy]

23. You're exactly right

Also, it shows the extent to which campaign staffers were involved up to the hilt in covering up the affair and its fallout. It establishes that the cover-up was part of the campaign, and hence the money to cover it up was a campaign expense.

A lot of people here were declaring the thing over with last week after the Andrew Young testimony, saying that the prosecutors had no case. I think they strategically put him on first, so that he would be the last witness on the minds of the jury when they went to deliberate. He's a liar and a thief, but most of the rest of the witnesses are not, and they serve to back up his story. Besides, we haven't even seen a glimpse of the space cadet, her testimony will really make headlines. It will reflect very, very poorly on John Edwards that he picked such an incredibly stupid and vain woman to do this with.

[msanthrope]

29. I think your post accurately describes the prosecution strategy.

So far, the prosecution is doing a pretty good job.

[sabrina 1]

72. If I were on the jury, I would be disgusted by the prosecution introducing this clearly sensational

testimony, which is not needed to prove the central charges in the case. Prosecutors, and defense attorneys often lose cases because they fail to assess a jury's reaction, on a human level, to testimony like this. Particularly in a case where the woman being talked about is dead and cannot testify herself, as to what her intentions were.

I would be asking myself what this has to do with whether or not he used campaign money for his mistress. Just show proof of where the money went. Dragging a woman who is now dead, and her children through this could have the opposite effect on the jury.

But then some lawyers in general are not known for their sensitivity towards other human beings.

[customerserviceguy]

76. The thing that gets me

is all the "Bunny said this," kind of testimony, which I thought was considered inadmissible hearsay. Now I know there are exceptions to that rule, such as might apply to a deceased person like Fred Baron or Elizabeth Edwards, or an excited utterance, etc. Also, how do you get to be 101 years old and still get to hold the nickname "Bunny"?

As for lawyers not being sensitive, well, Johnny finds that karma can come back to bite you in the ass.

[cynatnite]

12. Honestly, it does not matter whether this happened or not...

It has nothing to do with the case at hand. This was only to dirty up John Edwards.

[SammyWinstonJack]

28. Anything to completely finish him off, I guess. Meanwhile....

cheney gets a new heart at taxpayers' expense and little pissant george is free to live the high life... and rumsfeld is free to give criticism of Obama's capture of OBL.

But Edwards had an affair and tried to cover it up with alleged campaign money.


Wasn't there something about millions or was it billions of U.S. tax dollars gone missing in Iraq during george the idiot's reign?


But Edwards is pure scum.

[andlor]

58. +1

[PotatoChip]

17. Odd reaction to be sure, but

didn't Elizabeth's cancer begin in the breast? Iow she died of metastasized breast cancer IIRC-

If this story is true, perhaps her thinking during her state of distress was one of 'Look what I've been going through while you have been out having an affair' ???

Just supposition and thinking out loud on my part, but I can see how she might have had that thought in her mind upon learning of the betrayal. EE always struck me as an intelligent and rational person. But seriously, is there any "correct" way to react to such a revelation? Especially after all she had been through?

If true, this certainly would seem to observers to be an 'abnormal' reaction, but otoh, she had just learned of abnormal (and inhumane) behavior from the one person in the world she needed the most at that time in her life.

[msanthrope]

21. Your post describes exactly what I was thinking....she showed him her scars.

If not actual (reconstruction) then metaphorical.

[arthritisR_US]

32. +1

[Poll_Blind]

39. Yeah, this is exactly what I was thinking. nt

PB

[laundry_queen]

41. Is there any 'correct' way?

No, there isn't. And I don't get the whole "SHE would never have done THAT. She was better than THAT" - it is somewhat judgemental as to how others behave during their times of supreme hurt. One support group I went to, after I found my spouse had cheated, had all kinds of genders, people, classes and all kinds of reactions. Everyone reacts differently. From the person who spied on her husband, documenting his every move with his mistress, to the person who called up every one of her spouse's friends and business contacts to let them know what a POS he was and how he'd been lying to them, to the person who followed his ex in his car and took pictures of her making out with her BF before confronting her, to the person who had a total mental collapse and had to be hospitalized when he found out his wife wasn't working late.....everyone has a different reaction and it's not always in line with how we think they SHOULD act based on past behavior or class or education or anything. That deep of a betrayal really fucks with your mind. I'm not saying EE did or didn't do it, but it sure wouldn't make me think any less of her if she did (or didn't).

[Spazito]

49. Well said n/t

[Wind Dancer]

60. +1000

Very insightful post!

[Hell Hath No Fury]

43. Makes perfect sense to me.

I kind of like that she did this -- it was a real "fuck you, bastard".

[Blue_Tires]

45. Sounds like Miranda Richardson in "Damage"

[MineralMan]

47. Sometimes I wonder if we really need this kind of information from the media.

I don't know. Poor Mrs. Edwards. Devastating stuff. I don't need to know this. I don't want to know this. Some things are better left private, even for public figures.

[Baitball Blogger]

52. That was my first reaction.

And then I thought, who can ever look at John Edwards in the eye again without knowing what a scumbag he was to his wife?

[Bluerthanblue]

54. no, we don't need to know this.

And we really shouldn't know this. It is none of our fucking business.

There are many things my children will never know about their father, or for that matter about me either. Things that would serve no purpose other than to hurt and wound.

The way the media uses the very real and brutal pain which actual human beings- not 'actors' or 'virtual characters' experience to sell shit really pisses me off, and diminishes all of us.

I'm ashamed of what we have 'evolved' into as a society.

[sabrina 1]

73. I agree, I do not see what this does for the prosecution's case other than disgust decent human

beings who will view this as a horrific intrusion into the privacy of a woman who is no longer here to defend herself. It is not clever, brilliant strategy, it is a horrible thing to do to a mother now dead and to her children, who have to bear the brunt of all this airing of what should be, their personal business. I hope the jury reacts appropriately.

[Baitball Blogger]

51. What she must have suffered. It's just unbelievable the additional torment

he put her through.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

59. How is this even admissible? and for what purpose, other than to make him look bad?

His attorneys have fucked up, unless the prosecution can show a basis for its admissibility.

I cannot think of any. His wife's mental state was not, is not, and cannot be in issue, partially because she is already deceased. Her knowledge of an affair? Even that is iffy for admissibility.

[Capt. Obvious]

64. I've watched enough tv to know that this is totally not admissible

His attorneys should have yelled, "objection!"

Classic fuck up

[magical thyme]

61. someting doesn't add up.

Reynolds claims that Elizabeth knew about the affair *before* it came out in the news.

She claims this scene happened *when*it came out in the news.

This is not the reaction of somebody watching a political campaign flush down the toilet. It's the reaction of somebody first learning about the affair.

And that, I think, is key to Edward's defense that he was trying to hide the affair from Elizabeth. If this witness was supposed to prove that he was trying to hide it to protect his campaign, this doesn't do that.

[cali]

63. how about the reaction of a wife who had taken her husband's

word that it was just a one night stand and that it was over? That's what Elizabeth said happened.

[magical thyme]

68. I hadn't seen that

Did she put it in writing? Unless in writing by her, it's hearsay.

As far as her reaction, then possibly yes.

Another thing that some people here aren't taking into account -- which has just occurred to me -- is the effect of chemotherapy. Even after it is over, it seems to impact memory and behavior. (As I was told *after* our lab manager totally forgot our discussion in my job interview and totally lost it in a meeting with me. I remain physically afraid of her and have been advised on the q.t. never to meet alone with her again...)

[cali]

69. She put in writing that she thought the affair had ended

she went on talk shows and said it.

And look, I understand her reaction. I think it was brave and searingly honest. Tearing off her bra, exposing her scars and saying "You don't see me anymore".

[magical thyme]

71. oh, I totally understand it

Including in front of staff. Some people here also don't realize what it's like to be surrounded by staff continuously. They start to become almost wallpaper.

If she thought it was over, but was a continuing, ongoing battle, it makes sense too.

[slipslidingaway]

78. John Edwards was a phony even before news of the affair came out ...

all one needed to do was look at what he said and how he voted.

One did not need the affair to validate the fact that he was not what he portrayed himself to be, watch what is done, not what what is said, that goes for all politicians.