I wonder if anyone can comment on the following:
I'm just going through my son's taped interview and checking it against his written statements . Although the solicitor's clerk has already made amendments, there are still a few errors including key words. I'm going to point this out to the solicitor.
One thing I notice on going through the statements is that the 'alleged victim's statement is beautifully written and puctuated whereas my son's written statement has no punctuation. When he repeats questions (which he does on several occasions with an interrogative intonation) this is transcribed without the question mark and therefor could be interpreted as being an affirmative declaration. Are there any rules governing this? There are also dotted lines.... would these be due to mumbling and should they be present each time he mumbles?
I'm just going through my son's taped interview and checking it against his written statements . Although the solicitor's clerk has already made amendments, there are still a few errors including key words. I'm going to point this out to the solicitor.
One thing I notice on going through the statements is that the 'alleged victim's statement is beautifully written and puctuated whereas my son's written statement has no punctuation. When he repeats questions (which he does on several occasions with an interrogative intonation) this is transcribed without the question mark and therefor could be interpreted as being an affirmative declaration. Are there any rules governing this? There are also dotted lines.... would these be due to mumbling and should they be present each time he mumbles?
Comment