Enzo: but I am not really convinced about his BITE model ...
Ok. What part of it are you not convinced about? Please be specific.
Are you aware that Hassan's BITE model is primarily built upon the work of Robert Jay Lifton and Margaret Thaler Singer? Without meaning to imply that none of Hassan's work is original, the fact is, his theories and approach rest firmly on the work of these two groundbreaking researchers.
Do you also find fault with their work? And if so, what? Again, please be specific.
And do NOT bring in any nonsense about the courts, as they are simply not qualified to examine to work of psychologists. It would be like asking a gynecologist to comment on the validity, interpretation and application of a complex area of tort law to a particularly convoluted lawsuit. It is simply out of the realm of her experience and expertise.
The whole idea of peer review is that a scientific researchers work is examined, analyzed and reviewed by those most qualified to do so, others in the same field or one as closely related as possible.
This does not mean to imply that others cannot examine, read and talk about it--much as we do here--but we are (for the most part) lay observers, albeit with informed opinions and personal experience in the matter.
That being said, a scientific model has validity if it describes a particular phenomenon and works for explaining it. A model is not reality any more that a paper map is the same as the physical geography of a real locale. Nevertheless, maps are handy things to have in navigating one's way around in the world.
Here are a few links to some articles about scientific modeling which you will no doubt find informative and thought-provoking:
Example of scientific modelling: A schematic of chemical and transport processes related to atmospheric composition. (Wiki Commons)
I'm pretty sure that no one believes that the little trucks, bus, cars or boat in the above picture are real. Do you?