Muscat: going down with his good friend Jeffrey…

Published: July 19, 2012 at 12:22am




13 Comments Comment

  1. Grezz says:
    July 19, 2012 at 12:33 am

    It’s a bad day for democracy…

    http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20120718/local/mintoff-admitted-to-hospital.429109

    Reply
  2. ciccio says:
    July 19, 2012 at 12:34 am

    If before the 2008 elections Joseph Muscat informed the PN that Labour would be targeting Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando about the Mistra case, shouldn’t we ask what he knew, how he knew it and why did he inform the PN?

    Did he do it to protect JPO, and if so, was he colluding, or currying favour, with prominent members of the Nationalist government?

    Reply
  3. Jeffrey Sob Sob says:
    July 19, 2012 at 1:13 am

    I’m no expert in body language, Daphne, but geez was Joey lying or was he lying?

    Reply
    • RJC says:
      July 19, 2012 at 8:04 am

      He was doing both! Any police superintendent would confirm it without doubt, they’re trained to notice such behaviour

      Reply
      • ciccio says:
        July 19, 2012 at 2:47 pm

        Would a lawyer summa cum laude who was a police Superintendent and who received extensive training in Scotland Yard notice that?

        If yes, shouldn’t he say something about it?

  4. Fido says:
    July 19, 2012 at 9:26 am

    Joseph Muscat uses a stock answer learned by heart not to risk deviation with a resulting slip and also to appear to be consistent.

    This rigidity in itself is a pointer that he might not be saying the truth. He used the same quote FOUR times in an attempt to convince listeners of his consistency, but it has been too rigidly overdone (see 0:35. 0:49, 1:21, 2:21min of clip).

    Particularly, in the last instance he had to interrupt the flow of his speech so as to recite the quote disjointedly to ensure that he quoted the stcck answer in full and word for word.

    Just before beginning to recite the stock answer, he momentarily glances horizontally to the left. This is read as ‘auditory remembering”, implying that he was recalling the sound of the answer he has to give from memory and not recalling straight from direct experience.

    During the reciting of the stock answers there is a deliberate attempt to hide any facial expression that might express reactive emotions. It is this same sudden facial rigidity that exposes uneasiness that also points at a lie.

    When he is reciting the stock answer for the first time, he rushes during the last phrase ( “mhux bifors irnexxielu”) eager to conclude the recital (like we used to do when we recited by heart at school).

    Telling as well is the grin that suddenly appears on the rigid face at the completion of the task as a self-complementary expression like saying “You see how good I am, I said it all without making a single mistake.”

    Body movements also serve as pointers. All neurolinguistics texts emphasise the fact that those who lie usually try adopt an almost expressionless physical expression with limited and stiff hand/arm movements. It also notes that hand, arm and leg movement are toward their own body the liar takes up less space. This is the position that Muscat adopts during the clip.

    The position of the legs can be clearly seen through the translucent base of the desk. Noteworthy as well is the contrast in the body position of Muscat as compared to the much more relaxed posture of the interviewer Reno Bugeja.

    The question about double agents in his party makes Muscat take again a closed position by pulling his leg backwards.

    The way Muscat rolls his head and lowers his eyes (1:11min) to answer supposedly a very straightforward question which visibly is putting Muscat in a very uncomfortable situation.

    Actually the whole body language here is pointing diametrically in the opposite direction of the spoken words. So much so that, after having completed his answer he forces himself to look in the direction of the interviewer – he was probably coached to do so – but stares vaguely to infinity (presumably over the shoulders of the interviewer).

    Reply
  5. U-turns u Kutrumbajsi says:
    July 19, 2012 at 10:12 am

    Joseph Muscat is so mediocre that his own “government by meritocracy” idea ought to fail and demote him first before anyone else.

    On such an important national issue he conducted what he terms an investigation.

    He simply had a chat with a couple of people. He also did NOT consider including the most obvious person he should have spoken to – the then leader of the MLP, Alfred Sant. Talk about quality.

    His “investigation” resulted in one thing: a prompt card with the words “kien hemm okkazjonijiet fejn is-Sur Cachia Caruana prova jinghogob ma esponenti tal-partit, mhux bil-fors irnexxielu”.

    And of course a bold and highlighted footnote saying “repeat repeat repeat”.

    Reply
  6. aldo says:
    July 19, 2012 at 12:11 pm

    Jekk Joe Muscat, kif qal hu, “ma ghandix ideja x’qed jghid (JPOS) ezatt”, mela allura:

    1) Kif ghamel investigazzjoni serja fil PL?

    2) Investigazzjoni minghajr ma kellem lil dak in-nhar kap, Dr Sant?

    3) Jekk kienu “ufficjali” u mhux “Ministri” tal PL, kif qabzu jitkellmu 2 Ministri (K. Vella u J. Mizzi) ?

    Kredibilta’ ZERO.

    Reply
  7. aldo says:
    July 19, 2012 at 12:18 pm

    Daphne, I am not a psychologist, but try this:

    “A frown (also known as a scowl) is a facial expression in which the eyebrows are brought together, and the forehead is wrinkled, usually indicating displeasure, sadness or worry, or less often confusion or concentration.”

    I wonder to which category Muscat’s frowning belongs. I would say worry.

    Reply
  8. fm says:
    July 19, 2012 at 5:04 pm

    Joseph Muscat looked very agitated in this edition of Dissett. Reno litteralment gabu tifel.

    Reply

Leave a Comment