Of course he hired them deliberately and of course he was conned, by Halligen at least. If you are the victim of a skillful con artist does that necessarily make you naive, gullible and a bad judge of character? Or does it mean that the con artist was just very good at conning people? Nuance dear, nuance. Not everything is black and white.
Due diligence dear, due diligence. It's the difference between those who hire the first builder they speak to (and get conned) and those who get three quotes and speak to the builder's previous customers (and get a good result).
I suppose you can't be too fussy when the job involves breaking the law in Portugal, although to be fair they did tell the PJ what they were up to; well, to a certain extent.
In February 2008 when ex policeman Antonio Jimenez was arrested on suspicion of helping criminals who stole £25 million of cocaine his links with Metodo 3 and the McCann case were mentioned.
Francisco Marco, the head of Metodo 3 denied Spanish television reports that Jiminez, 53, had worked for Metodo 3 for three years.
Clarence Mitchell agreed;
"He is nothing to do with us. He collaborated with Metodo 3 on a project, but that was two years before the company was hired to find Madeleine.
"We still have faith in the work of Metodo 3"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1579678/Madeleine-McCann-detective-agency-link-held.htmlPerhaps Brian Kennedy didn't tell the McCanns that he'd been to see the PJ with Jimenez just three months earlier;
a meeting was held, in this department, with Brian Kennedy, the director of the detective company, Francisco Marco and an advisor of this same company, Antonio Jimenez, ex-chief of the Kidnapping Unit of Catalan.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/BRIAN-KENNEDY.htmI think Jimenez was aquitted of the charges; what a sheme his former associates were so quick to deny any connection with him.