I don't believe that it has been said anywhere that he did not admit the position of the camera. Nor has it been said that he did, specifically it is missing from the interim report. He may not have realised the implication of where he subsequently found it, nor that it was, in part, the cause of the incident.
It does seem rather extreme to trawl through his data card for timings in order to match those from the FDM and then forensically examine the camera body simply to confirm a story.