When the investigators first arrived on the scene would they have not searched all the vehicles that were on scene at the time DeOrr went missing, the LE wouldn't have let a vehicle leave without it being searched would they?
I will assume that when the first police arrived on the scene that the adults were separated and each questioned as to the events that took place prior to DeOrr going missing, I will hope that they have all been questioned separetly several times since
IR is a sketchy dude, I don't know Idaho law but I do find it interesting all the different charges that have been filed against him, only to have the charges dropped, I sure hope that there isn't some good ole boy mentality in the area
If LE arrives somewhere because of a report of a lost child in the forest, do they immediately treat the area as a crime scene or immediately start a search? I think how the area was treated within the first few hours would play a large part in whether vehicles were searched at that time.
I have been thinking about the store "sighting" at 6 pm. Whether the clerk saw a crying boy with a man or not, I don't believe DK and DeOrr were there. I believe DK jumped on the clerk's sighting as proof that DeOrr was with them near the campsite that day. (He may have been with them, maybe not.) That DK has professed he believes DeOrr was kidnapped, although not entirely convincingly IMO, yet completely discounted the possibility that his child was seen with a stranger at a store between the campsite and the rest of civilization after the time he went missing is extremely fishy. He and JM called the sighting "a rumor". If it was my kid, I'd call it a "clue". Combine that with insisting (very defensively IMO) that he and his son were at the same store 5 hours earlier than the clerk sighting, although they went "as a family" and there was no mention of JM, is also fishy.
I'm reading a fascinating book right now called "I Know You Are Lying" by Mark McCish, so it is probably affecting my perspective. I highly recommend it.