Just playing devil's advocate here, and trying to see the case from all perspectives. One thing in favour of the parents telling the truth, is that the older sister is on the scene. If anything very wildly different to the children playing outside would have taken place, then I don't think anyone would be assured that a five year old girl could be expected to feign a story and tell lies. A child's mind is just not that sophisticated - the truth would come out or be blurted out one way or another at some point.
So there MUST be SOME truth in the fact that the kids were playing outside... It IS weird that the girl cannot provide more information, but I doubt that she would be speaking under parents' or anyone else's directives to not disclose anything in particular. It's just too big a risk.
Just on the point that some people have mentioned upthread, about William possibly having his attention distracted by a wallaby or something in the bush and setting out to run after it. If that's the case, it would have had to have been a pretty big animal to have stood out from above the tall grass and be visible from the house...
What also gets me, is that an animal such as that would be even quicker STILL than William at 3 years of age. I doubt he could have pursued a wallaby or kangaroo for long, before losing sight of it and him just being impeded by the thick grass and foliage.
Aside from spotting something of interest to him in the bush, I really can't get my head around what would lead him to venture into it?
Do any people with children have any insights on why a child that age would run into the bush and vanish??
