À votre demande

23:51 Jul 24, 2017 

It is definitely the full transcript of the interrogation. There are other interviews, but all references to other case documents are explained and noted by the clerk. The back-and-forth is quite conversational (ie not formal, "je vous demande..."), which is why I would have expected there to be the simple question "how much did the truck cost", when he says "à votre demande... the truck cost 70.000 euros". Since he does this at several points, it seems more and more likely to me that this is simply a mannerism of his, that he punctuates his own answers with "to answer your question". I will check whether any other suspects use this expression in their interrogation.

16:34 Jul 24, 2017 

what the suspect (or witness or victim) has to say, it might be that questions are simply not recorded (only a supposition);

OTOH I really can't see what kind of "requests" could be coming from an investigating judge if not requests to answers to pointed/specific questions?

15:56 Jul 24, 2017 

How does the investigating J. open the interrogation? He/she may have started with something along the lines of "Je vias vous demande de..." or "Je vous demande de..." in which case the suspect may be taking a rather litteral approach, with a truncated version along the lines of what Daryo suggests, and kind of latching onto some type of request by the investigating judge at the outset.

15:41 Jul 24, 2017 

Daryo's suggestion would make sense in that case, reading "à votre demande" as if it were a truncated version of "En réponse à votre demande/question". If that can fit your context then it may be the way to go. Effectively, as it stands, it does read rather stangely with a face-value meaning of "at your request". Is there absolutely nothing to suggest that previous questions have been put? Might there not have been a previous interview? Are you certain that your have the full record of the interrogation?

11:51 Jul 24, 2017 

I seem to be seeing a problem no one else, which could well be me overthinking, but for me the problem is that the suspect seems to be referring to a question that is not recorded in the interrogation transcript. If he is prefacing his own further elaboration, in the way we say "to answer your question...", I understand it. But I don't understand why he would give information "at your request" when no request for it has been recorded. As I say, I may have been staring at it for too long or maybe there are contextual elements I am not making clear.