They aren't having any trouble identifying him, they know good and damn well who he is.
My guess at this delay is more along the lines of establishing a cause of death. If he died from dehydration and malnutrition, it isn't going to be obvious just from a visual observation. If he died from a rattlesnake bite, there might be a bite mark and some swelling, but it still wouldn't be definitive.
If he was found floating face down in a cattle tank, then the probable cause of death would be more apparent. If he was found at the base of a cliff, it might still not be clear if he fell from a height or not.
He may have tried climbing a tree in order to get a better view, fell and landed on his head.
I wouldn't be surprised if when they found him he was simply curled up under a tree or a bush and appeared to be sleeping. That may have everything to do with why they called investigators to the scene, since the cause of death wasn't apparent and they had to rule out any kind of foul play. If he died from exposure, dehydration, starvation, a medical condition due to stress, or even a heart attack, it wouldn't be obvious during a visual examination.
We still have no idea where he was actually found. The closer he was to the campsite, the more thorough they have to be in order to rule out foul play. The further away he was found, the more it substantiates the wandering off theory.
What we all do know is that he never responded to the searchers that were out there looking for him. Is that because he wandered far away, or is it because he had a fatal accident right after he got lost ?
