Two very different Paul Arnolds were on display in the witness box today, as the DV defendant gave testimony under cross examination from both his defence counsel then the crown prosecutor.
The difference in Arnold's demeanors were stark, as emotion vanished from his answers under questioning by crown prosecutor Rebecca Everitt, to a calm witness.
It wasn't more than half an hour into his testimony with the prosecution that I realised he hadn't cried yet; nor his voice quivered.
If the aim was not to break nor appear unstable, in front of the prosecution; he was passing with flying colours.
Sometimes there were carefree and flippant responses combined with confused looks, before his testimony became more evasive, as the questions got harder.
For me, the penny dropped when he didn't cry about the very same actions he took under cross examination by crown prosecutor Rebecca Everitt, as he did when his lawyer John Tippett QC presented them to him.
One of the most prominent examples was his evidence on throwing two items at his ex-partner, the make-up box and Yeti drink container.
He couldn't keep it together, and sobbed through these actions for Tippett QC, but with prosecutor Everitt, he smiled and laughed when talking about throwing the same two items, as he appeared to think it was funny, in the context of how "elevated" he was.
It was that moment I asked myself whether Paul Arnold was in fact, a psychopath.
There was no break in-between the change from defence to crown cross examination, for a medication dose to occur. Arnold also disclosed in testimony that he'd stopped taking anti-psychotic medication in December last year.
In my view, the credibility to his time in the witness box was over when he tried to dry-cry after being cornered by the prosecutor in his testimony, on the Deprive A Person Of Personal Liberty charge, ten minutes out from the end of proceedings today.
Arnold's explanation for the audio recording where it sounded like he was preventing his ex-partner from leaving the residence: "I was tired, I'd had enough."
Prosecutor: "She was telling you that she was trying to leave?"
Arnold: "I agree. I agree that she was trying to leave."
"And you wouldn't let her, until she admitted to you that she was as cunt."
- Prosecutor Everitt
Arnold: "It was how I felt."
Prosecutor: "And then you said to her: 'do you believe it? You need to fucking believe it in your heart.'
"This was the day after, on your account, you smashed her jewelry box, and broken a mirror."
Arnold: "My actions were shit. I know that. I just had enough."
Prosecutor: "Right Mr Arnold. I'm suggesting to you, that you saying you'd had enough, is directly in contradiction to your actions. You agree?"
Arnold: "Yes I agree. You can hear."
Prosecutor: "It's difficult to get away from the recordings, isn't it?"
While I thought Arnold's tears under cross examination by his lawyer were genuine, the fake cry he tried turning on at 3.40pm, without any lead-up to get into it, blew everything up.
Never put the defendant in the witness stand, is the old legal adage.
We are The Mango Inquirer.
[Disclaimer: The Mango Inquirer does not imply Paul Arnold is a psychopath. I've simply asked the question. The Mango Inquirer does not imply Paul Arnold is guilty of some or all of the charges. We simply indicate our opinion on the credibility of his testimony.]
For those unfamiliar with the case, Paul Arnold is charged with: Damage To Property, Aggravated Assault, Deprive A Person Of Personal Liberty, Unlawful Stalking, Engage In Conduct That Contravenes Dvo.
He's pleading 'guilty' for one charge, and 'not guilty' to the other 14.
