Thanks so much for The Australian article. Not sure if what I read was the entire article, but I read the four pages of scanned images.
Every time I read an with some new information on this case, I ask myself what my 'gut reaction' in response to that new information is. In this case, the report certainly outlines the logic, diligence and rigour with which the search so far has been executed. In my mind, I have done many, many rounds already of lost in bush > abduction by someone known > abduction by someone unknown > ... etc etc.
As part of this never ending cycle, this article brings me back to two key concepts: LOCAL and ABDUCTION. I have no suspect in mind. I cannot even properly map out a view in my mind, how something like this could have been orchestrated.
But I do know that all paedophiles or abductors etc, start SOMEWHERE, ONE DAY. It may well not be a known sex offender. It may be someone who has been spoken to many times. It may be someone who has never done anything like this before. It may be someone who appears perfectly 'normal' to everyone, and has always done so. Never to be suspected by anyone. Maybe some freak, bizarrely coincidental set of circumstances and opportunities have enabled somebody to slip through this web, somehow.
It is admirable that police dogs WERE on the scene from day one. But William could have already been 'spirited away' by then by a person. The scent of such a person, if it were ever to have attempted to have been identified/tracked, may have been perfectly explicable in the given environment. It may help to put oneself into the 'shoes' of such a person, for want of a better word and pardon the pun. Whoever did this, would not necessarily have been able to preempt what immediate actions would occur upon the boy being noticed missing by his family. They might have preempted police dogs would come along, but perhaps not so many locals coming to search so soon. The latter, as we read, 'contaminates' a scene.
So, somewhere along the line such a person, in an extreme hypothesis, might have had to accommodate a scenario where that person's scent itself might have been found at, say, the boundaries of William's grandmother's property. And that person would have had to have some plausible 'excuse' at the ready, as to why that scent might have been found there.
I have re-read this and don't know whether I am making any sense. And I am not suggesting any family member is involved in this hypothesis...