There must be evidence of the Questions put to the Defendant and the Answers given in response, which must be recorded, or set out by the defence to enable the Court determine how far the Statements were voluntarily made. The Questions must, not however, be of an inquisitorial nature, nor should Questions be asked to pin a Person down to certain Statements, nor, should there be any Leading Question. The Statement should be spontaneous and voluntary and free from false impressions or influence. It is difficult, if not impossible to have a set form of questioning, as it is clear that every Case will be different and would turn on its own Set of Peculiar Facts. The Form and Extent of Questions asked must of necessity vary with the facts of each Case. Where there is nothing in the Statement to show that besides the usual and stereotyped questions, there were any prejudicial or leading question or craftily prepared questions asked of the Defendant, the voluntariness of that Statement ought to be accepted. A mere questioning of a defendant by a Police Officer resulting in a Voluntary Statement, which may turn out to be incriminatory, was found not to be obtained by compulsion in the Indian case of S VS KATHI KALU, A 1961 SC 1808: 1962, 3 SCR 10. In England, a confession will not be excluded merely because it has been obtained by questions put by the Police Officers before arrest, even though put to enable them to decide whether or not to arrest. It was held that a confession made to Police Officers does not become inadmissible merely because it was elicited in answers to questions put to the accused, and a confession in answer to questions put by the Police is in strict law admissible, PROVIDED THERE WAS NO PROMISE OR THREAT USED. See the cases of R VS DOUGAL, 67 JP 325; R VS KERSHAW, 18 TLR AT 357; R VS BEST (1909) 1 KB 692; R VS LIEBLING 2 Cr APP R 315; R VS KNIGHT 20 COX 711; R VS BOOTH, 5 CR APP 711; AND LEWIS VS HARRIS, 110 LT AT 337. The Court’s view of impropriety of the questioner’s conduct and the general circumstances of the case is considered and the Court must be satisfied that no pressure of any kind was put on the Defendant. See the case of IBRAHIM VS R (1914) AC 599; 18 CWN 705 PC: 155 AND R VS GARDNER (1915) 85 LJKB, 206, PHIP 8TH EDITION, AT PG 251 In this case, when the Prosecution sought to tender the Three Statements of the Defendant, the Defence raised no Objection whatsoever, and they were admitted as Exhibits P13 A; P13 B and P13 C. The Defendant and his Legal Representation did, not express the issue of the Statement being obtained in the manner of this challenge, throughout the Trial. The Court must find proof of such questions tending to be oppressively put to the defendant and it was expected that Learned Silk ought to have advanced this Objection during the Trial. It appears that Silk’s reliance on the manner or mode, the Written Address of the Prosecution was couched, was what necessitated this objection. The Address of Counsel is not and has never been an avenue for facts gathering to contend an issue. The Objection, must be premised on solid facts adduced during the Trial, and without further ado, this line of contention is dismissed as misconceived. As regards the QUESTION OFDUMPING OF DOCUMENTS, Learned Silk, Kanu Agabi SAN, representing the Defendant argued that the Documents tendered by PW4, Mrs. Mobolanle Folarami, the Assistant Director NDIC, and PW6, Mr. Celestine Idiaye, the Staff of Diamond Bank, where merely dumped on the Court, as the Makers of those Documents were not called to testify in regard to the Documents tendered through them. It is trite that for Documents to have any probative value, the Person tendering the Document must tie them to a Particular Aspect of the Case. Reference is made to the case of INIAWA VS AKPABIO (2008) 17 NWLR PT 1116 PG 225 AT PG 299. Further, the Court will follow the 43