Assuming that the Sheriff actually has reasons for saying the things he did (beyond mere gut feeling or hunch), imo it would not be irrational to conclude that this "kid wanders away from campsite" is in fact something far more sinister. Sheriff says Deorr was at the campsite (although couldn't confirm, that's how I understood the "99% sure"). Sheriff says Deorr was not abducted, wasn't attacked by wildlife, and didn't drown or in some way end up in the creek or reservoir. There is no scent found of Deorr outside the campsite. It seems unclear whether his scent was even found at the campsite, but the sheriff must have a reason for being so sure Deorr was there.
Let's be frank, Deorr is not alive. He may not have even made it to the campsite alive, which would explain the lack of scent (eg, he was in a vehicle). What scenarios are left? GGP is from most accounts severely physically handicapped. IR, although the interview raised eyebrows, in a sense, and this is just my opinion, worked in favour of his non-involvement. Basically he came off as a complete drunk/drugged dummy, simply not capable of making Deorr disappear, literally without a trace, within the very narrow window of opportunity described by the parents. Which leaves?
Well it leaves Mr and Mrs Kunz.
All of this is just my opinion, which rests on the assumption that the sheriff has reasons for his beliefs beyond mere gut feeling or hunch. There is no (concrete) evidence (that we know of) (so far) of the parents involvement.
But hypothetically if they are guilty of something, then what? Perhaps the parents 'walk/exploration' actually involved a car.. A car which could of taken Deorr well outside of the search radius (was it 3 or so miles?), and made it back within the hour that the parents reported he had been missing.
Just thinking out loud here, nothing more than my own idle musings.
