Is nugnug claiming to have
heard the interviews?
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,551.msg452828.html#msg452828untill you hear the interview you dont actull i think it was more along the lines of he id know maybe not
it was an increible agressive interview that the sccrc agread breached his human rights.Luke Mitchell was interviewed several times by police but their behaviour was not found to be “overbearing” on every occasion he was questioned.
[144] The first passage that had been founded upon by the Crown was to be found at page 17 of the transcript of the interview, where the appellant agreed that on 30 June 2003 his mother and brother had had a fire in the log burner.
However, there had been evidence of that fire from Mr and Mrs Frankland and also from Mr Ramage.
The second passage relied upon was at page 21 of the transcript of the interview and related to the knife owned by the appellant. A photograph of the knife had been shown to him. That photograph had not featured elsewhere in evidence, but the knife itself had done so, for example, at page 106 of the transcript of the earlier part of the interview, Crown production 42,
which had not been objected to. A further passage relied upon was to be found at page 35 of the transcript in which the appellant had explained why he did not telephone the now deceased to see where she was when she failed to meet him. It was submitted that this passage had not made any new contribution to the evidence, since the appellant had said to David High that that was the case.
Reference was also made to the transcript, Crown production 40, pages 70, 120 and 143. The fourth passage relied upon by the Advocate depute was at pages 36 to 37 of the transcript, where the appellant was asked why he had not telephoned Jodi Jones when he had got home after playing with his friends. There had been nothing in that passage which had not appeared elsewhere in the evidence.
The fifth passage relied upon appeared at pages 39 to 40 of the transcript of the interview, where the appellant had been asked about what he had said to David High when he met him and why he appeared to know that David High had said to the police that the appellant had said to him that Jodi was not coming out on the night in question. The fact was that the appellant had not agreed that he had said this at all.
In any event, there had been no overbearing behaviour on the part of the interviewers at that point. https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=e2988aa6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7