bothers me that BD "own" timeline says SA dropped overalls/work clothing off at work. Hindsight (maybe) she should of said, " he told me" he dropped off his work clothing.
http://www.sweetwaterreporter.com/sites/default/files/Billie Dunn timeline.PDF
The other curious thing is that MB must have responded almost immediately to DD's text, whereas she did not respond at all to HD the previous day.
The bit between 12Pm and 2Pm on Tuesday seems too tight as well. That is a 2 hour period during which:
1) BD contacts DD and talks to him.
2) DD contacts MB (or goes to her)
3) DD contacts BD
4) DD goes to CD and talks to N
5) DD returns home and calls BD
6) BD calls CD (how? he doesn't have a phone - did DD take the cell with him - that could merge (5) and (6), but why didn't CD use the cell phone to call LE himself since it was right there - odd. EDIT: on thinking about this, if true, it implies that CD didn't want to contact LE, but BD insisted and resorted to doing it herself right away)
7) BD calls SIL
8) SIL goes to BD's work
9) SIL and BD drive to CC
10) BD goes to LE
While phone calls don't take that long, some of these people don't have phones, so there must be some physical movement between locations. Also, in some cases (such as contacting MB), responses would not have been immediate in all probability.
So, really, on determining that HD was at neither CD or MB, they immediately go to LE.
I would think, given the circumstances of their family culture, it would have been more reasonable to call around to other friends houses first before contacting the police. It sort of implies that there was something else going on that would make them immediately think something was wrong when she turned out not to be at MBs house.
Figuring out what that is will probably solve this case.