Knowing that he has fostered kids in the past, I doubt that he is part of the ring. The Australian article says that it is very unlikely that William's abductor was a first time offender and if BE had offended previously, whether by abducting or molesting a child, we would know about it because I don't think the police would have left a stone unturned. They would have interviewed all parents and children previously involved with him thoroughly IMO. Also, if they found anything on his computer at all he would have been arrested for it. I know I am in the minority but I have my doubts about his involvement in William's disappearance.
I don't see how he could have opportunistically grabbed William then organised/undertaken something sinister then turned up to Laurieton so quickly without leaving some kind of evidence.
Truthfully? I think they have wasted time and resources that might have been better spent elsewhere. Having said that, I'm sure there are a LOT of things we don't know and I have been very wrong in the past.
I just think that if they had a single thing to pin BS on, he would have been arrested already. That is telling, IMO. Unless they have something happening undercover like with Brett Cowan? I don't know. In one of the earlier articles about BS it was said that the tip off was that he was meant to visit the house that day. There had to be more than that for them to spend months investigating him and name him publically, right? There has to be more and until we know what else there is, I just don't think we know enough for me personally to say I think he did it.
