I agree with CK,
I am split on the theories of what happened to Dennis. It varies, but is usually about 50% naturally getting lost or injured, 30% animal predator, 20% abduction.
A part of that 50% is Dennis falling into a land structure or water structure which would be non-investigatable by the rescue team. I agree with CK that without the presence of evidence, which could be tested with DNA, I believe that we will never know what happened to little Dennis Martin because of the age of this case.
If that skeleton story were true, and I am on the fence as to whether I believe it or not, had those bones been analyzed for Dennis' DNA and if it would have been shown to be his, we could than assume what park investigators believe. Dennis got lost, and perished in the wild. The bones could have been brought up from a land or water surface due to erosion and weathering after all these years. Even if DNA showed this, will still would likely never know the paths he took, exactly how long he survived before he died.
If that skeleton story is a hoax, which CK believes, or the bones would not match Dennis' DNA, we are back to square one. Going on an abduction theory is possible, but after all these years, to have no clues, no ransom notes. In one of the stories, there was some communication between the Martins and another man who participated with them in the search, and the FBI as I recall suggested a "watch" on this person, according to the Martin family. I am not sure, but believe this is how the Martin's arrived at the theory that their son had been abducted.
Interviews with living family members or relatives I think would be needed. If someone saw something on that day that could give clues as to a resolution of this case, it would put to rest a 40+ year old mystery.
If Dennis Martin's death was not due to a natural parishment or animal attack, it would have to be by human cause. I could see how all three options could be possibilities.
Satch
I am studying this case in small bits and pieces just to see if anything sticks out from the smallest piece of evidence. Right now, I know that many don't believe the skeleton find. But, let's assume that this evidence is true. The John Doe report says that the "skull of a small child was found near Tremont's Big Hollow." Still trying to find out how far Tremont's Big Hollow is from the area where Dennis was last seen.
I know many might think after all these years, how could you draw any conclusions from that? Skeptics would say after all these years and how those areas were searched and re-searched, how a skull could be missed?
But really when you get down to it, if that skull story is true, what is so sad is that to my knowledge that is the ONLY piece of evidence that could have been the Martin boy, and that's going on a belief in a John Doe story, that has understandable skepticism in the first place.
It would be interesting to hear what the deputy ranger has to say about John Doe and the skeleton. We know that no remains were never actually found, but for John Doe to give out at least a location "Tremont's Big Hollow." might be something we can put with the scream 7-9 miles away that the witness heard later on the evening that Dennis disappeared, as well as the child-type shoe-print found about 2.5-3 miles out a few days into the search.
Is there any association or geometric relationship between known or rumored places where Dennis could have gone? If those proximities could be mapped out, for example let's do a time interval to illustrate:
By average approximation, within a 5 minute period of time from the Spence Field Appalachian Trial going I believe it was Northeast? I know the other children went in the opposite direction. How many different directions or hazards would there be in those directions? Are we talking about 5 different routes, 10, 20, 50 or more?
I looked at some of those pictures and I would get lost just looking at them! We have to study the most logical areas or hazards within the areas of distance that would take the smallest amount of time to get to first.
Than, I would say, work your way outward from the smallest directional areas. The more different directions Dennis could have gone, unfortunately, the greater likelihood that some evidence was missed along the way.
I still think that if it had not rained several hours later that evening and into the night, that perhaps evidence could have been picked up. Does anyone know during what point of the search the bloodhounds were brought in? (Normally, the Smokies do not allow dogs to be brought into the park.)
The strongest evidence, I think would be within those first 5-10 minutes that Dennis vanished up to just before the first night storm. The rain either destroyed or altered probable evidence.
Satch
PS. Went back to check:
The skeleton was alleged to be found by John Doe 3-3.5 miles away from where Dennis was last seen, and in the same direction as the Oxford Shoe Print.
The scream the witness heard was about 7-9 miles from where Dennis was last seen.