Stuff
I understand that not all SI are conducted the same way but I find it impossible to believe that this interview was conducted without the presence of at least the legal representative and it's improbable the President wasn't also there for primary evidence gathering.
In my own limited experience, twice it has been one on one, the other two on one. At no time was I permitted representation, or even a "Mackenzie friend". It would appear, and this has been confirmed by (e.g.) the Cabinet Secretary, that this "right" does not extend to (in my case) civilians interviewed by a Service Inquiry, or equivalent. I think this wrong, but am in no position to prove otherwise. In any case, each time, as you say, the conduct of the interviewers was proper, but there is no way you could say it was an "interview" in the legal sense and I was not given my statements to sign. But it must be said that when I tried to follow up the most recent one (February 2004), the investigator told me he had been shut down because my evidence cleared the prime target (I won't say suspect, because he was known to be innocent), and they would not dare go after the 2 Star who had actually committed wrongdoing. At the Inquest, MoD changed target, to a junior officer; then afterwards re-acquired the original target. When the family of one of the deceased asked for the investigator's report, MoD denied all knowledge of the investigation, It was only 2 years ago that it let slip that it retained the reports. The rules, such as they are, are not applied equally!