I don't know who's doing the interview. It doesn't say. But that doesn't really matter so much as the content of the interview itself. Have you read it? It's extremely weak on providing useful information to any investigator and strong on pumping up JHTH's alleged knowledge of things. It's a prop. Whoever was doing the interview failed to ask any good questions and gave JHTH plenty of room to just talk about himself and make more allegations. It was not a professionally conducted interview.
If you want something that can be used in court, as we should expect the interviewer wanted, then this interview failed completely to get anything like that when the opportunity was there.
I don't know why you're talking about our opinions, since they have nothing to do with any of this.
Really who conducted the interview is not important to you ? I would like the answer to that as it would shed more light on what is going on here. so to me it is important to know, but feel to run with it and see how that works for you.
you would find the answer to your question by knowing who conducted the interview and questioning the one who conducted the interview. would lake bad on the stand if you were questioned about this under oath and you testify you do not know who did the interview. that's the start of having your butt handed to you on the stand. Once you lose the case you can not retry it. So important to get it right from the start.
(post is archived)