I think the dad was scheduled to work, and did work. What I'm saying is that they emphasized that he had on coat and boots because he rode with Mom to bring Dad to work and that he still had them on the last time she saw him. That is strange to me. It seems like they tried to establish that Noah was alive and well and rode to work with the family. But LE made a point of saying they had no hard evidence of this, just the Mom's story. I just find it strange that mom, who says that Noah knows better than to go outside alone, is seen by her in coat and boots, a couple hours after they get home from bringing Dad to work and she goes back to sleep not thinking, hey, my kid is planning to go outside while I'm nap? Because I seriosuly doubt that any kid still has on their coat and boots for a trip they made 2 hours earlier. Jmo.
Can I ask why you find it strange? (Genuine question.) I would think establishing timelines of both parents and Noah, and what he was wearing last and where he was wearing it...is completely standard in a missing child investigation.
Not that I don't think her story overall isn't hinky, I just don't think establishing these facts is strange. Whether they actually are facts remains to be seen, obviously.