A veritable trinity of confusion. I still think something - what? dunno, don't have the foggiest - transpired between the "drug" and the "led," which I guess leaves the "walking of own volition even though the alleged Camo Person was guiding her with a hand on her arm" (have I got that right? lol) as icing on the Cake of Confusion that is this Case.
Being a Tennessean, I can identify with the choice of words used "in the heat of the moment" when one is upset. I think it's highly likely LE led with a question like, "What happened here, Clint?" and I think he responded, "He drug my sister off into the woods." "Drug" in this context means "took her." Im not sure Clint meant to imply force, since he claims he thought she was just walking normally with someone. Sometimes we all use the wrong word when we are highly emotional.
Who knows? Maybe Clint originally said "a guy in full camo led her off into the woods" and LE changed the word when they tried to describe what happened. We all know the old game of "Post Office" where you sit in a circle and start passing a phrase around the circle by whispering it once into someone's ear. By the time the phrase has been repeated multiple times, the original phrase is so distorted that it is not like the original message.
While I do have my own private theories based on the evidence, I do not think that there is anything particularly ominous in the words used to describe how Holly went into the woods. From Clint's statements, the guy was touching Holly, either holding her as one would hold a hostage, or supporting her, as one would support someone who was injured, or guiding her where he wanted her to go by holding her arm. The act itself could have been an act of aggression, an act of compassion, or an act of chivalry (helping her walk through rough brush.) Let's not forget that we don't absolutely know WHY she was taken. We don't know at that point if Holly was willingly going with someone she knew and did not fear. So characterizing it as dragging, leading, or walking her into the forest is difficult to describe for the one who did not even understand WHY she was walking away from the direction she should have been going to get to school! To be critical of the word he chose, to me, is being nit-picking, since he clearly did not see anything happening that looked ominous at the time. (Dragging Holly into the woods by her hair or by her feet would be a different matter.)
If you go back to the first two threads at this site and read the links as you come to the stories, you who know the case will be amazed at how many inaccurate facts were reported early on. Here are just a few I can think of:
1. Holly's mother AND brother saw her dragged away.
2. There was a home invasion.
3. Holly's sister and brother saw her abducted.
4. A body was found.
5. The car she was kidnapped in had been found.
6. The female neighbor heard her scream and came to check on her. (the son heard the scream, and his mother came later, after many phone calls between parties.)
7. Various specific items had been found (many of these not based in fact and never confirmed)
8. Clint found the duct tape with blond hair (actually found by searchers out by a road)
These are just a few of the rumors that came out during the first couple of days. If this much incorrect information could be put out, then why do we think that Clint's statements could not have been misquoted and twisted as they were passed along?
JMHO