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

[SouthAussie]

The DM & *all* media have been told, in no uncertain terms, from the early days of Gus Lamont being missing - the family did not welcome media intrusions.
I'd also like to see the same 'grace' given to Gus's grandparent, who by all police & media accounts, was 10 kilometers away from Gus when he vanished. I've had a gutful of the side-eyes, the innuendos & the veiled suggestions.
Gus Lamont in the ultimate victim, and *all* the family members are also victims; SAPOL have not named any family member as a POI *and* WS is purportedly a victim-friendly-forum.

M s

A published public apology from the DM for the additional anguish they have caused the grandparents wouldn't go astray either.

imo

 

[SouthAussie]

So then all the A Current Affair / 60 Minutes style reporting where they show footage of a reporter knocking on someone's door, attempting to make contact / talking through a gap in the door is all illegal? Wow, why haven't they cracked down on this, it's been going on for decades.

The BIG difference here being that the media had been asked (multiple times in the last month) to stay off the private property.

Deputy Police Commissioner Linda Williams ..... “My understanding is two members from the Daily Mail organisation, despite numerous warnings over numerous days and weeks … have gone on to private property,” Link

 

[statt#1]

"That little boy deserves respect to go about it on all the right roads."

What does this mean? It's quoted from this article......

Aboriginal tracker who searched for Gus insists police will find him

The Aboriginal tracker tasked with helping find missing South Australian boy Gus Lamont makes a surprising revelation on the one-month anniversary of the four-year-old's disappearance.

www.dailymail.co.uk

I remain focused on these comments, believing hidden within are some potential clues, yet unsure what it all means....

"He made the cryptic comment: 'That little boy deserves respect to go about it on all the right roads.

'Police will find him, they will. They do what they do best, I do what I do best.' He added: 'One day I will tell the story (about Gus).' "

"He declined to comment on the significance of the solitary red footprint found about 500m north of the Oak Park homestead, citing his close working relationship with SAPOL."

 

[Lady-J]

You might have that assumption and you might be right, or you might be wrong.

But there's no link. We don't know if police have thoroughly questioned people.

Here's my first question, "has the dad been interviewed or thoroughly questioned?"

And my follow up questions are:

"Have all alibis been checked?"

"Has the Oak Park homestead been searched inside?"

I can't answer any of these questions because there's no news article to confirm any of this.

You’re right, I was assuming that the family have been thoroughly questioned by police to make sure their stories align and also that their phones have been checked to make sure there’s no evidence of a cover up because the vibe I get from the police is the family are not suspected of foul play .
It’s all very hushed up so who knows who or what the police suspect.
Imo wandering off now seems unlikely.
Surely the family and homestead will be carefully analysed next if this hasn’t already been done.
I did hear on a news report on tv that paedophiles in the area had been questioned and ruled out . Also that highway camera footage had been looked at but I don’t have a link .

 

[Bats]

You’re right, I was assuming that the family have been thoroughly questioned by police to make sure their stories align and also that their phones have been checked to make sure there’s no evidence of a cover up because the vibe I get from the police is the family are not suspected of foul play .
It’s all very hushed up so who knows who or what the police suspect.
Imo wandering off now seems unlikely.
Surely the family and homestead will be carefully analysed next if this hasn’t already been done.
I did hear on a news report on tv that paedophiles in the area had been questioned and ruled out . Also that highway camera footage had been looked at but I don’t have a link .

Its more than a "vibe" that you're getting. Police have categorically stated, they "don't suspect any foul play".

In order to make such a statement, they will have definately checked all alibis, that stories are aligning, any phone data available etc etc. You can confidently assume all of this has been investigated, otherwise SAPOL wouldn't make such a bold statement.

 

[kurtneverdied]

Its more than a "vibe" that you're getting. Police have categorically stated, they "don't suspect any foul play".

In order to make such a statement, they will have definately checked all alibis, that stories are aligning, any phone data available etc etc. You can confidently assume all of this has been investigated, otherwise SAPOL wouldn't make such a bold statement.

I think police consistent comments of not suspecting foul play are more than likely to make any perpetrator, if there is one, feel more comfortable to make a move/mistake such as incriminating or making themselves suspicious on any surveillance. Also saying this would make the family look guilty unless they stated the suspect wasn't one of them. As Police can't rule anything out yet they would also want to keep family on their side for the same reasons and not risk making them or any suspect bunkering down and going quite. I can't see anything to gain from saying they suspect foul play, at this stage as anyway.

 

[BreakingNews]

I think it by one of the daily mail posts articles in this thread a few pages back when someone was posting saying maybe gus followed his mom without her hearing/seeing him, when others were talking about the gates being possibly left open for their walk

Thanks. But that is why I like links. So we know the info is coming from an allowable site and not AI, Tik Tok or any other rubbish

 

[Ellery84]

Sinister theories emerge about search for Gus Lamont

Gus was last seen playing in a mound of dirt near his grandparents' homestead on a sheep station 40km south of Yunta, in eastern South Australia, at about 5pm on September 27.

www.dailymail.co.uk

They've copy pasted some of our theories.

"A few offered alternative theories.

'I have this sickly feeling he's fallen into a wombat burrow,' one wrote."

 

[BreakingNews]

Deputy Police Commissioner Linda Williams said on Friday that Ms Murray was using the gun to “dispatch a snake” and had no threatening intentions, and labelled the Daily Mail’s actions as “disgraceful”.

“My understanding is two members from the Daily Mail organisation, despite numerous warnings over numerous days and weeks … have gone on to private property,” she said.

Ms Williams warned the public to stay off private property.
“If this persists, then action will be taken, you will either be reported or arrested, this is completely disgraceful conduct,” she said.
Ms Williams said the actions of the homeowner had been assessed and no further action would be taken."

She said the people who approached the home were unlawfully on the property.
“I’d say you need to look at the behaviour of the people who entered that property unlawfully.”
SA Police has not said whether the Daily Mail team has been reported for trespassing.

https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/truecrimeaustralia/police-courts-sa/grandmother-of-missing-fouryearold-gus-lamont-brandishes-shotgun-at-reporter/news-story/79dd05e96be7b447c0fe0d9c26adf4ee?amp

The Daily Mail has no respect for the family, they are intrusive and unethical imo and if they have been warned by police to keep off the property they are showing contempt for lawful direction.

Can we all read what Lemony has linked and move on. Granny had the gun for a snake!!! Daily Mail got caught up in the moment and made a huge issue out of the gun. MOO. Also I call fake photo from the DM of the back of Granny holding the gun. The reporter would not have seen the back of Granny if in fact she was leaving. Fake photo IMOO.

 

[Ellery84]

I call fake photo from the DM of the back of Granny holding the gun. The reporter would not have seen the back of Granny if in fact she was leaving.

The photos are taken by a photographer. Jonica Bray was not the photographer. She was the reporter. One asks the questions, the other photographs / videos.

Paparazzos often are equipped with long angle lenses and all of the special equipment.

So something that looks close up may have been taken from far away.

Imo

 

[BreakingNews]

I wonder does the Commissioner realise that snakes are protected by law in Australia. It is illegal for an unlicensed person to kill, injure, or capture them, except in cases of immediate self defence ( slithering on the veranda etc does not constitute a need for self defence as snakes here do not Attack) but they will bite if provoked.
So the rule is - if you come close to a snake, stand very still and let it pass.

I would shoot a snake on my verandah. Especially if I have a one yo inside. I consider that self defence. The house is for humans, not snakes. That was always the rule when I lived on 'snake highway' in the bush.

 

[Bats]

I think police consistent comments of not suspecting foul play are more than likely to make any perpetrator, if there is one, feel more comfortable to make a move/mistake such as incriminating or making themselves suspicious on any surveillance. Also saying this would make the family look guilty unless they stated the suspect wasn't one of them. As Police can't rule anything out yet they would also want to keep family on their side for the same reasons and not risk making them or any suspect bunkering down and going quite. I can't see anything to gain from saying they suspect foul play, at this stage as anyway.

I see what you mean. As you have said and also my opinion, I think that if the Police stated, "we are invistigating if there had been any foul play" then they are basically pointing the finger at the family. I'd doubt we'd hear the Police say that type of thing in a media conference in this particulartype of situation. They would likely update the public in a very general way rather than verbalising "foul play" may be involved.

Equally, I don't think they'd state "we don't suspect foul play" if in fact they were in the middle of investigating evidence that did suggest foul play.

The Police are normally very careful with their language in these types of situations.

Whilst they have said they don't suspect foul play, they have also said they are investigating all avenues. To me, this says they currently have nothing to suspect foul play. Or at least as from the last time they stated that. In order to not suspect foul play, they'd have checked all the normal channels.

JMO

 

[BreakingNews]

The photos are taken by a photographer. Jonica Bray was not the photographer. She was the reporter. One asks the questions, the other photographs / videos.

Paparazzos often are equipped with long angle lenses and all of the special equipment.

So something that looks close up may have been taken from far away.

Imo

I said reporter, but yes. meant the photographer. I still call fake on the photo of the rear of Grandma holding the gun. She would not have turned her back on the trespassers for a second. And if the photographer still took photos after being told to leave, the photo would not have been of her back! MOO.
I don't understand when police have told the media to stay away, why did these people still turn up on the doorstep. Totally disrespectful to victims! I think I would have thought I saw a snake nearby and fired.

 

[Andreee]

Shannon gave a no comment response when questioned by the reporter.

Shannon asked her to leave. Reporter agreed and headed toward the car.

Whilst walking toward car, Josie appeared on porch with gun in hand and started yelling.

But the reporter insisted on replying several times after that to Josie! She should have just given a quick 'leaving' remark and hurried to the vehicle. NOT try to explain. Either way, they have been warned not to try this stunt again. It was completely unnecessary. Yes, we should move on from this topic IMO.

 

[TootsieFootsie]

Some professions seem to think signs on people's homes don't apply to them.

I have a no junk mail sign on my letterbox. Have had it for only a couple of years and I have been pleasantly surprised that
the majority respect it.

Two that don't are real estate agents, and religions.

It seems that some journalists are the same as it seems in this case they think they can do what they like.

 

[HoneyBunOne]

I agree completely. She had fair warning and knew she would not be getting an interview as such. She and her photographer did what they expected to do to inflame this tragedy, and got called out for it by local LE. I bet they didn't expect such negative feedback locally!

Can you imagine the job briefing -
Boss: Head on out to the Yunta property, and see what exclusive you can get from the family.
Journalist: But we've been told categorically that press are not welcome on site...
Boss: Do it anyway - we want the scoop

In this video, the reporter says that when she made her statement about the incident to the police, the police said "It's going to be very hard to prove that she wasn't out there removing a snake for example..."

Personally, I hate the Daily Mail as an outlet. I only use that website for news about missing people / criminal cases. I always see all the trashy articles in the sidebar... However, I can't deny that they do publish so much more information than is available on any of the other news websites about these cases. That particular reporter may not be perfect or polished - in fact she put me off when I first encountered her - however over time I have come to really enjoy her grassroots style of reporting.

All IMO.

Snipped by me.
I'm confused about the video above. In it, the reporter states she made a statement to police. She doesn't appear to say what it was about, but we're lead to believe it's about the gun/snake incident. She says police (assumedly when she's making her report) say something to the effect that Josie may have been out there with a gun to dispatch a snake. Then she goes on to say the "very next day, oh...." and trails off. Is she suggesting Josie made a statement the next day claiming the gun was for a snake?

The reporter also seems adamant there was no snake on the verandah - was she on the verandah and was she inspecting every part of it? I believe the word she used was "categorically" no snake. That's a big claim, and would suggest she was poking around the house. A snake can be under a bush one second, and on the verandah the next.

MOO

 

[TootsieFootsie]

I think that some journalists are expected to push the boundaries just to get a story and the story of being asked to leave falls right into their lap. Confrontation stories are often what they're after.

They can then go onto attacking in print or online the person they've succeeded into provoking

 

[TootsieFootsie]

Also snakes are often good at blending into their surroundings.

 

[TootsieFootsie]

A snake can be under a bush one second, and on the verandah the next.

Or even coiled up in someone's boot on the verandah.

 

[Total_C]

I am not a lawyer, but I went and looked this up because some of the claims being made here didn’t sound right. Considering the confidence with which people were posting legal takes, I thought it was worth actually checking.

A lot of people are saying that because police told the media not to attend the property, anyone who walked up to the house was automatically trespassing. That is not how the law works in Australia.

We have a common-law implied right of entry. The High Court confirmed this in Halliday v Nevill (1984) and Plenty v Dillon (1991). Members of the public are allowed to go onto private land for the lawful purpose of approaching the front door and attempting to speak to the occupier. Journalists do not gain special rights from their job, but they also do not lose the rights every other member of the public has.

Only the occupier can revoke that right. Police cannot do it on someone else’s behalf just by saying “do not go there” in a press conference. A police warning is not a legal revocation. To revoke implied entry, you need something like clear signage, a gate or fence, or the occupier directly telling the person to leave. If someone remains after that, then it becomes trespass.

It is also relevant that no trespass charges have been laid. If this were a clear case of unlawful entry, it is hard to see why police would not have acted on it already. The absence of charges aligns with the actual legal position.

This is not about defending the Daily Mail. People are free to dislike their reporting. But the law does not operate on personal preference or feelings about a media outlet, and the implied right of entry exists whether we approve of the visitor or not.

Here's a link to the SUMMARY OFFENCES ACT 1953 - SECT 17A which speaks to what trespass is also.

(edited to add links)