With respect, I did say that I am sure individual police officers worked hard. I am a former nurse with some experience with working with offenders (have also seen a lot!) and I regard police as colleagues. But there clearly were failures here across the board regarding picking Maxwell up and with the judiciary's sentencing errors, who when police (credit to them) charged him when many rape cases never get to court. As a nurse, we also beat ourselves up when we miss something because it can have dire consequences. I hope the detectives here work through here what they did and could they have got to a conclusion sooner. We have the right and the responsibility as the public to question when things are not solved.
When a woman vanishes from a walking route/outside location, the possibility of a violent attack is something that should be considered - in these cases the body is often near to the route. To me and many here at the beginning, Leah's case always looked like foul play.
As I understand it police spend a lot of time investigating vehicles that are in the area when someone goes missing. Again nothing led anywhere, so you go back to the route. As regards cadaver dogs I would have used them on Leah's route within the first week or so which maybe they did. I think it's unlikely that Leah was kept alive very long (I hope not) and that during that window of time they might have picked something up before she was more effectively concealed. Me, being me, I would just happen to have one with me when I was doing door-to-door enquiries. Worth a shot to break a case.
Firstly apologies I think you got the brunt of my annoyance at police blaming that's been going on for a long time, unfair blaming in my opinion.
I would expect that a violent attack was considered, but that doesn't change the way it has to be approached. She went missing walking to work, so walk the route, knock doors, speak to anyone to see if there is footage or anything seen that is suspect. They did that and found nothing, they then canvassed 4k houses, twice. There's a limit to what you are likely to find out from going back time and again.
In terms of cadaver dogs, I agree if they immediately focused on the theory of murder then this may have been a route to take. But that's not the logical first step. There are so many lines of enquiry to get through, first stop close friends and family (not getting into mr. x again here). I could go on for a while but the reality is that a stranger abducting her out of the blue one day and murdering here is so low probability that I don't imagine it would be a good use of resources for some time.
Also as i said before we don't know how many houses exactly were on her route, and which route did she walk that day, let alone how many of them were unoccupied. It turns into ever increasing circles and time flows while people are trying to work things out.
Initially I think personal leads were very promising at first, Mr. x, secret outings, gps/location off, the hotel trip when she lied to parents, that's a lot, a lot of data to go through to. It presented like a left on her own type scenario. Then the leads run dry, what next, improbable events, but cadaver dogs are very specialised animals, more than likely they miss the scent unless they can get in, but there's no one home and you can't break into houses to search on the outside chance.
Doing door to door wasn't just one dude and his dog there were many officers, many days and weeks... there's just not that many cadaver dogs.
I understand your points and frustration, but looking like foul play and being foul play are different things, the police will always have more information than we do which will give them better perspectives. There is also a process to rule out/in the possible/probable.
Not everything can be solved, this has been, or at least is heading in that direction. There's some solace in that, the family can put to rest their daughter and they can take stock of things knowing where things stand for the first time in 3 years.