Published in the Australian, day before the SMH article, much the same news......this bit is interesting though.
As we stand on the road, the policeman invites us to draw conclusions. If William had been playing chase-ies with his sister, where would he run? It is unlikely that a three year old would run up a steep hill. The logical place is down hill, in full view of the house.
You can see the aspect of the house, he says. If you are inside the house you are looking straight down the street. You have got a view hundreds of metres down the street. Youd hear a car coming up the street.
There is bush all around. If a child had gone missing, youd *initially assume he was lost in the bush. But on closer inspection the bush is thick with lantana and spikes and there are no real tracks. It is very difficult terrain for a three year old to navigate.
So if hes not lost in the bush, what next? Someone has taken him. But who knew he was there?
Any vehicle or any person coming into Benaroon Drive is conspicuous. The neighbours all know each other and each others vehicles strangers and strange vehicles are noticed. All the yards are large and open and neatly mown. Would an opportunistic predator risk an abduction in such a setting where he could be so *easily caught? Besides, its not the sort of street you just cruise past. What are the percentages? the policeman asks.
The same goes for a targeted abduction but if it was targeted how did they know he was there? Where would they sit and wait for the chance for the child to run out on to the street?
OK, Fehon says as he looks at his watch. You guys have been here 10 minutes; what do you think has happened to young William?
We dont know, we say, looking at each other. It does seem an incredibly difficult location to snatch a child. We dont know, either, Fehon says. Thats why we are keeping an open mind to all *sibilities.
http://m.theaustralian.com.au/news/...064608526?nk=f09417940c0d57bdda3789911a538ed0
