Obviously you have experience in this regard. But is there anything at all that would cause you to see that she “is” speaking to him as more of a “peer” and not a “suspect”?
She sounds to me, as if she is gathering facts from a fellow law enforcer to sustain that this act was self-defense.
The goal is to get the person to talk. For some, it may mean being adversarial and ticking them off until they say something incriminating. In Z’s case, treating him with respect and as the innocent victimm who has her utmost sympathy was the trick.
Their demeaner is based on their goal (as much info as possible) and the attitude of the person being interviewed.
Thank you for your input. I appreciate it muchly!