In the interview there were things that are clearer to me now, and other things that are not. There were points I found believeable, and other points that were clearly not.
He says he didn't want to put a lot of stuff about problems Gail had out in the public arena - yet that's exactly what he did in his court filing. He says he wanted to protect the kids, yet he also says he let them read the court documents.
I can't seriously believe that he honestly thought that 8 months out Gail was still voluntarily missing, having not touched her bank accounts, used her cell phone, contacted him, the children, or anyone else she had ever known.
I don't think there's anything wrong with him talking about how this whole situation affected his life, or the children's, or his views on AD or the media coverage, etc.
I think it could have been a tragic accident. I do. But it just seems to me like most families who lose loved ones, and are in the public eye, usually one of the things they want everyone to know is how special that person was who was lost. How they want them to be remembered for all the wonderful things about them. He seems somewhat concerned that people would think ill of him, but doesn't seem to care that people might think ill of Gail.
In fact, every single negative thing ever said about Gail only came from him or his camp. Anything about Gail that was positive came from friends, coworkers, neighbors, etc., IIRC.
JMHO.