Out of curiousity why do you think DV is wrong? Or.... which parts?
This wasn't put to me and I can't speak for others obviously but FWIW there are for me some good and weak points about DV's case.
Good points: first, he cogently challenges the 37SR narrative. HR never ID'ed SJL, but said he heard a door slam as she left the house and saw her bundled into a vehicle. He later retracted the last part, the first can't be true because fingerprints say she never went inside and the keys never went missing, so that leaves nothing of HR's statement.
In addition, though this is not a point DV makes, I don't know how you can assume anyone seen near 37SR was SJL unless you know how routinely busy the street was. If it were Piccadilly Circus there'd be loads of passers-by and you'd never assume anyone seen was SJL. So how busy was Shorrolds? If you saw a woman there, did that
have to be SJL because nobody ever saw women in that street?
Next, DV deconstructs what was afoot in the office that day, and where she might have been going, and follows that train of thought. The police in contrast instantly bought the Mr Kipper line, initially focused entirely on finding out who that was, then latterly pivoted to 'proving' it was Cannan.
DV shows clearly how disastrous the family's involvement was, with DL convening her own press conferences in which she distributed misleading and out of date photographs of SJL; editing the information given to the police about their last conversations with her; and Quakerishly being more concerned with managing her posthumous reputation than finding her killer. They were apparently aghast that she slept with blokes and wanted this hushed up. Well FFS look at her, and imagine the offers she got - at what point did she get one she couldn't bring herself to refuse? Probably not far past about 19 if I had to guess.
DV's audit of how JC came to be in the case is absolutely merciless.
The weak points: having established that SJL could have gone to the PoW, and that it contains a place you could hide a body, DV doesn't show that the pub was definitely empty bar the temp landlord, nor that there was any reason he'd attack SJL, nor why he'd do so literally within an hour of having the pub handed over. It's like there's a big missing piece of logic or fact (which for all I know is true, because e.g. legal concerns).
He indicates that in 1984 the pub floor had been raised - creating a space underneath - and tiled. In 2007, "
...during a purely cosmetic makeover, the stage area had been lowered from above, and the floor put back to its original height, before being tiled over again." - I struggle to see this. A floor that you can lower must be suspended, i.e. it would sit on something such as crosswise joists. To "lower" it you'd surely have to take it up, cut and refix those joists, then re-lay the floor. I don't see how you do all this without anyone noticing the famous dead estate agent under the floor.
His interview technique does not appear up to much for trained LE - the majority of his witnesses get in a huff.
He tends to omit without explanation things that undermine his PoW theory. For me, if your theory doesn't accommodate the BW sighting, it's in trouble.
The weaknesses don't completely trash his argument, which is interesting. It is possible SJL went to the PoW, but it does not seem possible she never left and is still there.
On balance, DV has persuaded me that she went into a house, flat or other building, accompanied but unobserved, and was there presumably first SA'd and then killed, also unobserved. If the building allowed for her to be loaded into a car unobserved and driven away, then that's what happened. If not, you can do what DV says of the pub, which is take up the ground floor boards to expose dirt and hide a body in the foundations before putting the floor back. In neither event will she ever be found until the building in question is demolished or a very well-informed snitch comes forward.
