Australia AUSTRALIA - 4YO AUGUST (GUS) Missing from rural family home in Outback, Yunta, South Australia, 27th Sept 2025

[Warshawski]

The landowning families of the UK and Europe have set great store by ensuring land and property are passed down to their descendants. In England and Wales property lawyers promoted the concept of the entail which (usually) ensured that property could only be passed down the legitimate male line, so that if a couple had only daughters the property would bypass the daughters and pass to the closest male relative, such as a nephew. There were several reasons for this. Firstly because in law a woman could not hold property and therefore control of an inheritance fell under her husband, and secondly because a woman being a significant heiress could make her vulnerable to profligate gold-digging fortune-hunters looking for money to squander. The entail was set out in a deed and usually provided for a fixed sum cash dowry to the daughters. It's a long time since I read Jane Austen but IIRC land, entails and daughters' dowries tend to crop up quite often in her novels. I've a feeling it cropped up in one or two of Dickens' novels as well.

It's likely that since Australian law was originally based on E&W law, entails were used from time to time there as well.

Difficult to say. Children born with severe disabilities tended not to survive very long so the question probably didn't arise very often.

(Edited for clarity)

Not that I believe this has anything to do with little Gus, but coming from a line of primary producers in Australia, I’ll add that the ‘generational pass down’ is also common in Australia. … mostly to the Sons as usually they’ve traditionally been the ones to ‘work’ the place continuously for little more than board & keep - before amassing & running their own stock. Note I said ‘usually’, .. not ‘exclusively’.

Once that was a ‘given’; kids in the bush just got on with what had to be done, it was all they knew, whether the ability or inclination of the ‘inheritor’ existed. They broke their backs, and often their spirit, in the pursuit, and often dismissed their personal dreams.

Thankfully however, over time it’s become recognised that not every child ( male or female ) born to the land has the aptitude to carry on the business successfully, and the early lineage of property owners has been broken.
These days it’s not only Australian industries who benefit from the skills & abilities of our bush developed offspring - they set great standards in the global stage as well.

IMO

 

[Warshawski]

<modsnip: Quoted post was removed> ... what I want to see proof of, is a thorough search of all those ‘buildings’ - houses, sheds, silos, shearing yards, quarters, trenches, machinery, rubbish dumps etc. ..surely all have potential for harm to an unsupervised small child.

Despite all the media pics of searchers traipsing all over the salt bush covered paddocks, never once have I seen even a mention of the searches done ‘close to home’. Surely SAPOL won’t have just have accepted that family searched there from 5.30pm - 8.30pm (or whatever) so no need for any further search ? ?

 

[MelmothTheLost]

Surely SAPOL won’t have just have accepted that family searched there from 5.30pm - 8.30pm (or whatever) so no need for any further search ? ?

Of course not. The police will have been all over the station house and its surrounding buildings like rats over a rubbish tip.

 

[Lemony]

So...

Should there be other searches
in case
earlier searchers missed Gus?

(As OP alludes)

Are such searches even contemplated?

During the last search, and announcement of the formation of Task Force Horizon - comprising of a range of specialists - the commissioner said the task force will continue to analyse information and assess further opportunities for searches on the property.

Also, from the SA Police Website

"Further searches of the property will be considered in future as Task Force Horizon investigations continue."

Police complete latest phase of search for missing four-year-old Gus

Police have today concluded a renewed search of Oak Park Station for four-year-old Gus Lamont who was last seen late on 27 September 2025.

www.police.sa.gov.au

 

[Serononin]

The landowning families of the UK and Europe have set great store by ensuring land and property are passed down to their descendants. In England and Wales property lawyers promoted the concept of the entail which (usually) ensured that property could only be passed down the legitimate male line, so that if a couple had only daughters the property would bypass the daughters and pass to the closest male relative, such as a nephew. There were several reasons for this. Firstly because in law a woman could not hold property and therefore control of an inheritance fell under her husband, and secondly because a woman being a significant heiress could make her vulnerable to profligate gold-digging fortune-hunters looking for money to squander. The entail was set out in a deed and usually provided for a fixed sum cash dowry to the daughters. It's a long time since I read Jane Austen but IIRC land, entails and daughters' dowries tend to crop up quite often in her novels. I've a feeling it cropped up in one or two of Dickens' novels as well.

It's likely that since Australian law was originally based on E&W law, entails were used from time to time there as well.

Difficult to say. Children born with severe disabilities tended not to survive very long so the question probably didn't arise very often.

(Edited for clarity)

BBM

Entails are also a significant plot point in the first season of Downton Abbey, to give a more recent example

 

[Bigditch]

BBM

Entails are also a significant plot point in the first season of Downton Abbey, to give a more recent example

The show's finale was Awesome!

 

[jessicalouise]

I'm struggling to understand why we're hearing from neighbours, friends, townspeople about this and not the family themselves. I can't recall anything like this..

People keep saying that they're a private family but that's obviously not the case if everyone knows, has known their whole family for generations, and people are comfortable speaking on their behalf.

When I think of a private family I think of people in my street I've never interacted with, who have never acknowledged me and have zero to do with their community. It seems this family was well known, well liked, and were involved.

Deciding not to talk to the media doesn't make people "private" as a descriptor. So i dont get why it keeps being bandied about by people the media speak to.

 

[BreakingNews]

I'm struggling to understand why we're hearing from neighbours, friends, townspeople about this and not the family themselves. I can't recall anything like this..

People keep saying that they're a private family but that's obviously not the case if everyone knows, has known their whole family for generations, and people are comfortable speaking on their behalf.

When I think of a private family I think of people in my street I've never interacted with, who have never acknowledged me and have zero to do with their community. It seems this family was well known, well liked, and were involved.

Deciding not to talk to the media doesn't make people "private" as a descriptor. So i dont get why it keeps being bandied about by people the media speak to.

I don't think making a comparison with a street and an outback sheep property will answer your question.
Everyone knows everyone in the bush. Some are just more private than others.

 

[Ellery84]

I'm struggling to understand why we're hearing from neighbours, friends, townspeople about this and not the family themselves. I can't recall anything like this..

People keep saying that they're a private family but that's obviously not the case if everyone knows, has known their whole family for generations, and people are comfortable speaking on their behalf.

When I think of a private family I think of people in my street I've never interacted with, who have never acknowledged me and have zero to do with their community. It seems this family was well known, well liked, and were involved.

Deciding not to talk to the media doesn't make people "private" as a descriptor. So i dont get why it keeps being bandied about by people the media speak to.

They are private. They don't have public social media profiles.

They don't have an outward facing profile.

And they're not talking to the media, and they have not done a public appeal.

There's nothing wrong with being private. It's smart in this day and age. IMO

 

[SouthAussie]

I think it is possible that the property does not have regular mobile phone service. Perhaps only satellite phone service, and radio communications.


(Family friend) Tiver added: "I am far too busy helping this poor family find their beloved son and grandson, so I am operating out in the real 3D world. And as soon as you are more than 10 km out of Yunta, I am out of cell-phone range and therefore blissfully protected from whatever vile trash is circulating on what I call the 'antisocial media'."

https://factcheck.afp.com/doc.afp.com.78B98G4

 

[Ellery84]

I think it is possible that the property does not have regular mobile phone service. Perhaps only satellite phone service, and radio communications.


(Family friend) Tiver added: "I am far too busy helping this poor family find their beloved son and grandson, so I am operating out in the real 3D world. And as soon as you are more than 10 km out of Yunta, I am out of cell-phone range and therefore blissfully protected from whatever vile trash is circulating on what I call the 'antisocial media'."

https://factcheck.afp.com/doc.afp.com.78B98G4

Great quote from Tiver!

 

[Dotta]

Today marks one month
since little Gus Lamont vanished
from his family's remote South Australian sheep station.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1982637147032269278

 

[SouthAussie]

"Nina Siversten, an expert in human physiology from Flinders University, said Gus could’ve travelled outside the search zone.

“Over a three-day period we’re looking at potentially three to eight kilometres,” she told 7NEWS exclusively.
“If the child could access some sort of moisture or dew or moist leaves that could increase it somewhat beyond the three days,” Siversten said.

They’re now in the final stages of assessing hours’ worth of drone vision taken of the property — using infrared technology to pick up any clues.

“There is still work that is ongoing by SA Police. They are continuing to make inquiries. There are a few different sources of thinking but I’m not in a position to comment on it beyond that,” SA Premier Peter Malinauskas said."

Missing outback boy may be outside targeted search area

August ‘Gus’ Lamont, 4, has not been seen since vanishing from his family’s farm at the end of September.

7news.com.au

 

[Ellery84]

“There is still work that is ongoing by SA Police. They are continuing to make inquiries. There are a few different sources of thinking but I’m not in a position to comment on it beyond that,” SA Premier Peter Malinauskas said."

That is very interesting, indeed!!

 

[su5ie]

"Nina Siversten, an expert in human physiology from Flinders University, said Gus could’ve travelled outside the search zone.

“Over a three-day period we’re looking at potentially three to eight kilometres,” she told 7NEWS exclusively.
“If the child could access some sort of moisture or dew or moist leaves that could increase it somewhat beyond the three days,” Siversten said.

They’re now in the final stages of assessing hours’ worth of drone vision taken of the property — using infrared technology to pick up any clues.

“There is still work that is ongoing by SA Police. They are continuing to make inquiries. There are a few different sources of thinking but I’m not in a position to comment on it beyond that,” SA Premier Peter Malinauskas said."

Missing outback boy may be outside targeted search area

August ‘Gus’ Lamont, 4, has not been seen since vanishing from his family’s farm at the end of September.

7news.com.au

I can see how one would feel the released image was edited there appears to be curvature on some items in the background, although on gus himself there does not appear to be any .

Prehaps the delay in a photo is because its a still from a video which would account for blurring in background

 

[jessicalouise]

They are private. They don't have public social media profiles.

They don't have an outward facing profile.

And they're not talking to the media, and they have not done a public appeal.

There's nothing wrong with being private. It's smart in this day and age. IMO

They're not private by any definition i know of as I previously outlined. Lots of people dont have social media. Especially over a certain age.

They're free to behave how they like or how they've been advised to behave - that's their prerogative - but for no one in the family to give any kind of public statement/appeal its not really like any other case i can think of. Not off the top of my head anyway.

I find it interesting to compare the investigation/media reports of this case to that of AJ Elfalak. I'm guessing NSW investigations couldn't be much different to SA ones so here's video of how the police conducted that investigation. Police/media reporting was far more transparent. Whats changed in 4 years that this time its so closed off to the public?

 

[musicaljoke]

I'm struggling to understand why we're hearing from neighbours, friends, townspeople about this and not the family themselves. I can't recall anything like this..

People keep saying that they're a private family but that's obviously not the case if everyone knows, has known their whole family for generations, and people are comfortable speaking on their behalf.

When I think of a private family I think of people in my street I've never interacted with, who have never acknowledged me and have zero to do with their community. It seems this family was well known, well liked, and were involved.

Deciding not to talk to the media doesn't make people "private" as a descriptor. So i dont get why it keeps being bandied about by people the media speak to.

Perhaps you answered your own question. When you don't know your neighbours, have never interacted with them and have zero to do with their community then when one needs to get information to them, perhaps the only way is through the media.

When you are in a small community where everyone knows each other well, then those people are continually informed of all the details of what is happening. There is no need to place your life under the global media spotlight because the community achieves an intimate level of communication on a local level. Privacy in a small community comes from being able to live in a vast area where access is controlled. It's not based on a lack of communication as happens in a city.

 

[jessicalouise]

Perhaps you answered your own question. When you don't know your neighbours, have never interacted with them and have zero to do with their community then when one needs to get information to them, perhaps the only way is through the media.

When you are in a small community where everyone knows each other well, then those people are continually informed of all the details of what is happening. There is no need to place your life under the global media spotlight because the community achieves an intimate level of communication on a local level. Privacy in a small community comes from being able to live in a vast area where access is controlled. It's not based on a lack of communication as happens in a city.

That wasn't my question though. It was why they were being referred to as "private" when it seems everyone knows everything about them in town. When people are described as private what that usually means is they keep to themselves and people know very little about them. That doesn't seem to be the case here.

 

[tillytatler]

That wasn't my question though. It was why they were being referred to as "private" when it seems everyone knows everything about them in town. When people are described as private what that usually means is they keep to themselves and people know very little about them. That doesn't seem to be the case here.

My read is that they are being described *by the media* as private, as essentially an excuse, shorthand for "did not want to give us a statement".

Which, honestly why should they - they don't owe it to the media jackals and they don't owe it to us, the rubbernecking public.

 

[su5ie]

Perhaps you answered your own question. When you don't know your neighbours, have never interacted with them and have zero to do with their community then when one needs to get information to them, perhaps the only way is through the media.

When you are in a small community where everyone knows each other well, then those people are continually informed of all the details of what is happening. There is no need to place your life under the global media spotlight because the community achieves an intimate level of communication on a local level. Privacy in a small community comes from being able to live in a vast area where access is controlled. It's not based on a lack of communication as happens in a city.

It seems to be the route law enforcement are taking now with regard to advising families to not talk to the media . I suppose it restricts the additional headache media interaction can give to families and in turn create unnecessary issues for investigator's trying to hone their leads