That was a contention.
But one that the average reader might take to be fact, based on the "we, policemen, experts..." type of statements.
How many people would bother to question his team's understanding of DNA, for example? A casual reading makes it sound as if he knew what he was talking about. Ditto concerning the significance of the dogs' alerts, and numerous lost-in-confusion issues.
My main objection is not that he wrote a book, was the lead in a "documentary" and was on every media outlet that would have him, nor even that he made a substantial amount of money in the process.
My main gripe is that he presented himself as an "expert" in order to defend his "honour", when he could have taken a step back from it and most probably would still have had a best-seller without the need to push his hypothesis as "what really happened" to the equivalent of those who assume that anything in a tabloid is substantiated fact.
I also think that a more humble attitude could have done a lot to push Portugal foward in terms of the limited resources at hand.
As an example, there was an interview with Lennie Harper (Haut de la Garenne). He openly admitted that he was faced with a massive situation that he had tried to deal with the best he could at the time. How far that's true or not, I don't know, but at least he more or less admitted that he was out of his depth and got side-tracked.
Well, we're all human and make mistakes. Personally, I prefer reading an account of someone who can admit to them, rather than insisting that mysterious and unsubstantiated conspiracies prevented them from proving the "truth", particularly when it concerns a missing child.
