Chiming in here to agree with TL333s regarding the dialogue. Backstory delivered like this is usually grating to read for me unless the recounted events are particularly interesting or the character is sufficiently entertaining and I didn't get enough of either here.
To ease up on this, I would suggest giving some more back-and forth, maybe even add a third party to the interview if it'd allow for a less vanilla Q/A exchange. Your Punkz is a shining example of using dialogue as a vehicle for story, due in part to allowing differing personalities to bounce off one another while they espoused.
It may also be worth considering the context itself: is there a better way to frame the story to take some of the burden of explanation off the dialogue? Could some of the information be presented in the history to open up room for something more emotive or action-packed in their recollection?
ETA: Another way of putting it: I think that, as it stands now, the whole thing comes off as 'too much all at once'. For the most part, each section of his story (creation, trafficking, meeting with circus folk, daring escape) could very well stand to be an entire conversation on its own. Telling it in such broad strokes takes away from pacing by rushing through plot points, hampering the sense of narrative progression. It's less 'telling a story' than it is giving the sparknotes of one.
