For example, his statements concerning non constat supernaturalitis and constat non supernaturalitis are at best partly right, and his statements that the Bishop of Mostar's ability to rule on authenticity was removed by Rome is false. The paper - probably written a while ago - is incomplete. And it is incomplete in an obvious attempt to explain away all the negative judgments of the Church concerning Medjugorje which undoubtedly occurred in "future articles (or whatever)" mentioned at the end.
The Bishop of Mostar had his chance and in fact the Vatican sustained objections against his initial findings. As most people know, the matter was handed over to the Yugoslav Bishops' Conference. The result was the Zadar Declaration which stated effectively "We just don't have enough outright proof yet, so we can't certify these events as supernatural". It is said that this declaration was a conciliatory gesture towards the Bishop of Mostar as head of the province, when really the Conference wanted to approve the apparitions. The way has always been left open for further investigations. And the latest news from the Vatican is that indeed there will be a new commission formed very soon.
Here is a link with some further explanation:
http://www.marian-times.com/articles/medjugorje/medjugorje-disinformation.cfm