And you answered- ““Yes”
Although he was asked to relate to this statement in a laconic manner and to answer the matter whether he said it or not, and even despite the rejection of the objection by his counsel [what and why to object?!] And in the woman's repeated attempts, the man refused to give a direct reference to his statement, and this speaks for itself and cries out for me! See a small part of the man's style and manner of action when he does not intend to cooperate and answer the substance of the questions:
"Counsel for the plaintiff: I'm asking you a question. You are being asked if you own the house. So your answer that you meant your father's house?
The man: I don't, I don't.
Counsel for the plaintiff: Don't you own a house?
The man: I really don't remember what.
Counsel for the plaintiff: Don't remember?
The man: No, I don't remember exactly the whole interrogation.
Counsel for the plaintiff: I get it.
The man: which was 10 years ago.
Counsel for the plaintiff: O.K.
The man: Neither is it.
Counsel for the plaintiff: Sir, just for the sake of it.
The man: I didn't read it either" (See transcript of November 18, 2020, pp. 578-583).
- Later in the same hearing, the man retroactively changed his testimony regarding the criminal proceedings in the United States and claimed that the testimony he gave in the said proceeding was incorrect:
"The Court: Are you familiar with this document? Are you familiar with this cross-examination?
The man: Now that I have time to read the document, I remembered the cross-examination. Apparently I gave the wrong answer here, because I explain above in answer 12 I explain what it is and then under pressure or probably it was, I probably made a mistake in my answer here. Because it wasn't.
The Court: Where did you go wrong in your answer?