I have been following along this case but haven't posted yet, because there just isn't much to "legally" talk ABOUT. But here are the thoughts I've had as I've read along, if anyone has any interest in reading the perspective of another sleuther.
1) That was a lame interview (interview of the parents). The interviewer didn't do a very good job of following up with pertinent questions when an answer left ambiguity to a part of the situation. And I don't mean that the answers were purposely misleading -- I just mean that most interviewers are better at asking questions that get to the important points, steering the interview as it gets off on a tangent, etc.
For me, the most pertinent information would be: EXACTLY WHERE was the child last seen? WHEN and WHERE did EACH PERSON present last see the child? If there was a miscommunication among the parties as to who was watching the child, this information is VERY relevant and I would think that all parties involved -- parents, interviewer, LE, etc. -- would want correct details given so that search time and speculation aren't wasted by being off in the wrong direction (both in physically searching the area, and in brainstorming where Little DeOrr might have gone). Why was this interview even done, if not to put out helpful information? If LE considers stranger abduction to be even a remote possibility, then letting the public know the exact details of location and timing would surely be relevant.
2) I do think that the timeline could be off significantly. Even in the best of scenarios, calculating and guessing at time passed is hard to do. A person could easily think that five minutes had elapsed, when in actuality it was fifteen or twenty. I don't know how many times I've looked at the clock and been amazed at the amount of time that had passed in various situations. And they had to calculate several different time spans -- the time the parents were off exploring, the time it took for them to search initially, etc. I don't think there is any way anyone (even the people there living the experience) can be sure of how long Little DeOrr was out of adult eyesight before anyone realized it, or (probably) exactly how long they searched for him. Unless someone specifically looked at their watch the instant they realized he was missing, then looked again when they stopped and called 911, that timing is just a guess. And I haven't heard anything reported to indicate that they specifically marked the time of any of the events of the day -- what time they arrived at the campsite, when they first left to explore, when they came back and realized he was missing, or when they started and ended their initial search. When you add up the different times that had to be guessed at and added up, I would not be surprised if the timeline could be off an hour or more.
3) I am completely baffled by the lack of information released in this case. I have seen many criminal cases where very little information was released, but it seems unusual in a case where a child wanders off, for there be to such an absence of information disseminated through the media. I have taken to reading the comments (and replies to the comments) on the local media reports, to try to glean ANY useful information.
I think that's just about all I can say. :-/
