Thylacine, the article is written by a journalist with quotes taken from a conversation with Fehon. As a body of text it cannot be taken as wholly accurate, as the journalist is adding his own story to join up Fehon's quotes.
In such articles, even the quotes could be taken out of context if a journalist wanted to. I'm not saying that's the case here, just that a body of text with intermittent quotes cannot be taken as a good summing up of the case so far (albeit the best we have been given) to the point that we should no longer be going over 'old ground' as such.
Going over old ground is what investigators do. We all have little to go on here. I wouldn't want the conversation to end here just because the article you posted a link to sums up everything....for some people.
"We dont know, either, Fehon says. Thats why we are keeping an open mind to all *sibilities.
With regards to the 'errand' - I can see nowhere in the Australian article that the possibility of the boy travelling in the car on that errand has been ruled out, do you? I was pondering the what, where, why aspects of the errand as something that I am interested to know. I realise that the LE have more knowledge about this than I do..but still I am curious.
Jmo
Oh I totally agree, no issue with covering old ground, meant it more as a means of illustrating that it's been discussed in previous pages if people wanted to go back, sorry should've phrased it better.
.. and definitely the article is not a perfect document of evidence etc, but as you mention it's the best we had so far in terms of actually describing things that occurred re chasies around the house with nan out back and mum making a cuppa near a window with full view of the street etc; I think this was the first article that ever mentioned those details, which clarify a lot re the actual time of disappearance.
I'm sure dad's car would've been thoroughly searched/checked as part of investigating the 'errand'. Tragic as it is, family are often perpetrators in cases like these, so would generally be the first place investigators look (as they appear to've done in this case; the article mentions having thoroughly checked the family, ruling out any family conflicts etc), so dad not being there during the disappearance would be red flag to any seasoned investigator so they'd surely check dad's car to make sure William hadn't been taken away in it, if people's version of the timeline was maybe a bit off, but we don't know (AFAIK) exactly how long dad was away before the disappearance, could've been an hour or more, eg before the photo was taken, ruling out him having taken William elsewhere etc.
SouthAussie, definitely agree locals might've heard that they were there (they arrived on the Thursday so nan could've even called friends to gush about her lovely surprise visit from family), it was more to address comments about family knowing Williams was there; the article linked, and others, clarified that no family, close or otherwise, knew they'd gone up there.
