I've just watched some (not all) of the Goncalo interview video.
Jeez what a crock of distorted facts, wild exaggeration, lies by omission and blatant cherry picking.
It's 'criminal' IMO that everything he said went completely unchallenged. Anyone who knew anything about the case could have wiped the floor with him.
Judging by the way so much evidence had to be twisted and warped (or deliberately never mentioned - which is just as bad) to suit his own agenda - then thank goodness Kate never answered any of the 48 questions. I have no doubt that a similar job would have been done on anything she had said.
All that did IMO was to give an insight into the methods used by some PJ officers to convince the public - and no doubt the courts into believing they had genuinely proved someone's guilt.
I'm disgusted at the blatant dishonesty of it all.
AIMHO
It is his opinion based on his knowledge of the investigation as coordinator from day one.
I agree he has made a number of deductions and offered several scenarios to explain what happened to Madeleine but for a few minor discrepancies the facts as related by him are for the most part reasonably accurate. There were unexplained discrepancies in the versions related by the parents, discrepancies which would allow any experienced detective to ask a lot more questions.
Those he related included Gerry changing his story as to which apartment door he used in the 9am check, the Tanner encounter with Jez and Gerry and Kate's changing story of how she found Madeleine gone.
The reference to the 200 cases in which cadaver dog Eddie was claimed to have been involved was a silly error.
I don't personally hold with his parental involvement theories but he did suggest that Madeleine could have followed Gerry out after his 9pm check and thereafter got into trouble. Gerry and Jez chatting and laughing just outside the apartment could very well have been the trigger which mobilised Madeleine given what we know about previous evenings.