He did, although he makes a number of mistakes which tend to undermine his reliability as a source. For example, CBD relates how JC told him that he was a well-regarded employee at Superhire. CBD then says that this is a lie, as JC was fired after it was discovered he had a criminal record. Yet JC's account is actually the correct one here. DV tracked down the guy at Superhire who gave him his reference, who confirmed that JC was indeed a well-regarded employee. The company was completely aghast when they later found out what he had been in for, but they didn't find that out until three years later.
JC's supposed resemblance to the HR-derived sketch is wholly suppositious because HR never said JC looked like the man he reckoned to have seen. So any claim that X looked like Mr Kipper unpacks into a claim that someone subjectively thinks X looks like an artist's impression of unknown accuracy of a witness's 5-second impression over his shoulder through a net curtain of a bloke whom the witness never saw properly, and whom the party claiming a resemblance has never seen at all. What value does that have, really? Furthermore, HR later claimed the Antwerp diamond dealer looked like Mr Kipper, but the Antwerp man is short, pudgy, 44 and has cropped hair. If that is true then the sketch must be grossly inaccurate anyway.