I noticed he used the present tense too. So DeOrr is on or near the mountain still?
Yes. The one thing he was very clear about is that he and his team feel Deorr IS (present tense) on or near the mountain.
He won't make a determination based only on the accounts given by the three family members. He wants to hear IR say that he did, or did not, see DeOrr alive and well, because IR is not a relative, nor even a close friend, and would/should be objective. That makes perfect sense. He's looking for corroboration.
Where he's vague is in his certainty that DeOrr is on or near the mountain now. To arrive at that conclusion, he must have reason to believe DeOrr was there in the first place. What is that evidence? Eyewitness?
My take, fwiw:
1. Conclusion: DeOrr was at the mountain/campsite, based on unstated evidence.
2. No Conclusion: The family members' accounts of events after their arrival at the mountain/campsite -- or after the point where evidence places DeOrr there -- require independent corroboration from IR. IR also could provide corroboration for an eyewitness, IF one exists. Timing is an important factor.
Conversely, if the family, or the new witness, has alleged suspicious behavior on the part of IR, answers are needed from him to clear up any doubts or questions that have been raised.
3. Conclusion: DeOrr did not leave the area of the mountain alive (i.e., no abduction) or dead. No evidence supports his departure. The presumption is that his body could not have been driven away from the area undetected.
So I can see a number of reasons why an interview with IR is important to KIC's investigation.
With regard to the "new witness", the inference is that whatever the story is, it doesn't bode well for one or more of the four adults. A couple of possibilities come to mind -- there certainly are others -- but suppose this person claims to have seen or heard
someone harming DeOrr. Or perhaps s/he claims to have seen
someone acting in a way that appeared s/he was disposing of a body. How reliable is this person? I take it there is no photographic or other solid evidence. Otherwise, there would have been an arrest by now, or radio silence in preparation for an arrest. So what can this person offer to back up his/her claim? Again, corroboration is vital. Regardless of who the witness implicates, until all parties provide answers, the puzzle will be incomplete. I hope IR and his counsel will come around and agree to that interview.
JMO
