I found the opposite quite by accident when I was a fan of his.

1. He covered a local case that I was interested in and so did research on myself. He made certain claims that did not at all match the official newspaper reports of the 100 year old case in the town archives, but which tended to make it fit the profile points better for inclusion into the book as a weird case rather than a tragic one.

2. As an author myself I was suspicious why he does not sell his books on Amazon. I have run into Amazon's anti-plagiarism software a couple times on my own as people have cribbed my work for websites and it is very hard to prove something is NOT plagiarized when you don't even know what the software is claiming IS.

I hesitate to call anyone a plagiarist but I can say that SOME of his articles when compared to sites like Charlieproject.org and other articles, bore a STRONG similarity to the original published work which felt like he had possibly copy pasted certain sections.

This would dovetail with why one would not put their book on Amazon because your account is frozen if you are accused by the software of potential plagiarism and if one is unsure what one copied this would be an ever present danger.

3. In some cases people HAVE been found since the books were written and he continues to reference their stories on interviews and in the books as still matching the profile points, never acknowledging that their deaths were proven to be otherwise. This to me hurts his credibility. I'd have to think of specific names but one that iirc comes to mind is a woman who was found a few hundred yards off a trail dead in her sleeping bag because she had solo hiked and injured an ankle and couldn't get to help so she just bunked down until her supplies were exhausted and died.

I like his stuff, but because of these and other reasons I view him a bit more like a campfire storyteller and take his stuff with a grain of salt is all.