Along those lines, I wonder why Early waited so long to release the witness description of the suspect? Even a vague description may have jogged a memory in a local (Oh, yeah, what about the guy who was with the crew that replaced my roof? Or my landscaper uses a guy that kind of looks like that). As time passed, the likelihood of those connections being made were reduced. And when Early did release the description, it was in the context of the DNA report in Feb. The DNA certainly didn't tell investigators the suspect had an athletic build so the witness saw/recalled enough to make that determination.
Maybe Early felt that the neighborhood canvases would have picked up those connections? Maybe he was afraid the guy would dump the SUV if they showed their hand too much? (I doubt the SUV has any evidentiary value if she was taken directly into the woods) In my mind, once it became apparent they did not have a decent suspect within the first few weeks, it would have made sense to put out what they did have.
On the positive side, it looks like they do have a decent amount of evidence - much more than I thought. Let's just hope the DNA was taken in a manner that cannot be successfully challenged in court. The language barrier could be problematic - hopefully the interpreter was brought it before he signed the consent form.