Agree, and they will probably stay that way until the case is solved and the trial is over (if it ever gets to that). We've discussed this before in relation to other cases where the news media and outsiders question the decisions of prosecutors & LE.
Questions about revealing evidence to the public has been relevant in cases where prosecutors/ME's rule cases as accidental or suicide when they were, in fact, homicide. An example I quoted was the Rebecca Zahau case, where her death was ruled suicide, but was later ruled homicide at the hand of her brother in law.
LE revealed some evidence in that case, but kept some details and evidence hidden. The ruling was questioned by the family and public. When the family gained access to all the evidence files and found many omitted details actually indicated homicide, it was very awkward for LE.
DeWine, et al seem intent on keeping as many details as possible from the public in the Rhoden cases. While they claim it's to enable them to rule out false confessions, a good deal of the withheld info isn't really relevant to making a case if they arrest the killers. It seems most likely, JMO, that the info is withheld because they don't want to be second guessed on their investigation. They don't want outside experts questioning their assumptions and conclusions.
JMO, at this point, it's likely the killers will never be arrested and even the most elementary details of the murders won't be revealed, outside of what we may eventually hear from family and witnesses. Hopefully, the family and others will some day no longer feel threatened and will reveal any details they know to the public.
I have thought this will be the case for a long time now. No one can contradict or second guess the investigation if no one knows anything about what LE and BCI has done or found. As I said before, if it can happen there it can happen anywhere...