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

[statt#1]

I think she may have exhibited an empty rifle to scare the trespassers, and it worked.

imo

I trimmed this portion of your response, as it is nearly the exact definition of brandishing. Loaded or empty doesn't matter.

I'm a U.S. citizen, and very familiar with all types of firearms. I've never used a rifle or shotgun in such manner, and never would, under any circumstances...If I raise my firearm it is only to shoot to kill, or in a target shooting scenario at the gun range. Carrying it to confront someone with an angry tone, and/or raising the barrel in such manner, is an invitation to a. get shot by the other individual, or b. be charged with a crime.

Definition of BRANDISH

to shake or wave (something, such as a weapon) menacingly; to exhibit in an ostentatious or aggressive manner… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

One of my earlier posts included this incident, along with a quote from a seemingly well respected tracker, coupled with the estranged relationship between Gus's dad and Josie. These three things, together, led me to ponder little Gus.

I saw Josie in that video, and what I saw concerned me....moreso the angry tone, but sure, the carrying of the shotgun, and the manner it was raised. I don't believe there was a snake. That's just me. Anyway, I envisioned Gus being afraid to even come out when searchers passed by, afraid to suffer the wrath. That's all.

 

[Ellery84]

Anyway, I envisioned Gus being afraid to even come out when searchers passed by, afraid to suffer the wrath. That's all.

It is quite illuminating to say the least. As an older woman myself, I would have been scared of the wrath and anger that I heard and saw in the videos if I was in that moment.

Imho: A young child would likely be scared and worried if they heard an adult raise their voice like that.

Maybe that is the first time ever that Josie had used her voice in a loud and angry way.

She may have been incredibly gentle, using a sensitive and kind voice with Gus and Ronnie.

Imo

 

[Mauig’ma]

This thread keeps circling on Jonica and whether she was trespassing. I covered that in a previous post, no one was charged and the legal elements were not met, so there is nothing useful to be gained by rearguing it.

What I want to talk about is why someone would go out there in the first place. I read a heap of missing child cases overnight and the pattern is striking. Families are frantic and front and centre, timelines get laid out fast, photos are released within hours, everyone mobilises together. That is how most genuine wander off cases look.

This one does not look like that.

We do not have clear confirmed timing.
We do not have key facts confirmed by police.
We do not have the family out front begging for help.
We did not get a photo released straight away.

That absence is notable. It is not proof of anything but it is a deviation from the pattern and deviations deserve attention.

If my four year old vanished I would petition the devil himself to come and help search.

Jonica going there makes sense to me. If you have been reading timelines and press statements and you get that same sick feeling that something does not line up, you go and look. You ask questions. You try to piece the timeline together.

I would much rather we stop bashing reporters for asking the questions we all want answered and bring the conversation back to the case itself. The timeline, the communication gaps, the behaviour patterns. That is where the real focus should be.

Thank you for the kind reminder. Much appreciated

 

[LookingForClues]

I'm quoting my own post because replying to @Ellery84 doesn't include what I said, and Ellery84 is asking me questions.

LookingForClues:

I'm fascinated by how our personal reality and life experience dictate our reaction to the way a grieving and stressed grandparent responds to intrusive members of the media who ignore repeated requests to stay away.

Many of you know I'm a former newspaper editor. I would have respected this family's request. And if one of "my" reporters insisted on ignoring that very public request, I would have suggested perhaps they should consider working for a less reputable newspaper. There will always be tabloid journalism because there is enough public demand for it. But that doesn't mean it's right. And it certainly doesn't mean we shouldn't push back and expect professionalism, ethical behavior and basic common decency. There are other ways to break a news story...if there's a story to break.

I'm curious as to how many times you asked a reporter to door knock a house. Can you tell us about how that works because I'm quite fascinated by the process.



I agree - there are other ways to break a news story. I'm interested to see what is next in this case, and how can we get closer to finding Gus?

I think the main mistake is thinking that you go door knocking to get or break a story. I don't believe in door knocking as a reporting tactic. This especially won't work if the family has asked media to stay away. What do you accomplish by knocking on the door? The family already said they don't want media on their property and they don't want to talk to the media. They aren't going to answer your questions if you disregard their wishes. That is a dead end and does nothing but make the family refuse to ever speak to you. You're not doing your job as a reporter covering a local story if you can't get anyone to talk to you. And in this particular case, what does a reporter showing up unannounced think they're going to "catch" the family doing that provides insight into what happened? Did this reporter solve what happened to Gus? No. Did she learn any new tidbits about what happened the day he disappeared? No. Did she find out if they have thought of any new places where Gus could have wandered, whether around the buildings themselves or out on the land? No. This reporter did not help us get any closer to finding Gus.

First, you do a bit of research to find out if anyone in the family is involved in their community so you can touch base with someone who might help you get an interview with the family. You make phone calls to the police handling the case. You call neighbors. You call the school superintendent and/or principal. If the family belongs to a church/synagogue/mosque/etc., you call their minister/priest/rabbi/imam/etc. If the person is in local government or on local commissions, you call their colleagues. In all cases, you call first to set up an interview, you don't just show up unannounced. People are busy and nobody likes that (except you can show up at the police station, of course, but you're likely to still need to set up a meeting). The idea is to get an interview with someone in the family, right? You find an "in" to make this happen, you build trust, you respect the people who are helping you. You try to find out what kind of kid Gus is so you can share his personality and interests with readers/viewers. You learn more about the family. Are they involved in the community? Does anyone in the family have a history of arrests and if yes, for what? Do neighbors like the family? Are neighbors afraid of them? Do people at their place of worship like them? You're looking for patterns and depth.

Even if the family from the very start begs for media coverage, you don't just show up at their door. You call whoever they designate as their spokesperson to set up a time to interview the family. Sometimes the parents themselves make it clear that it's acceptable to contact them, but again, you call and set up a time. I don't understand why anyone would think it's right to show up at a grieving family's house unannounced. People need time to compose themselves so they can answer very painful and distressing questions.

In this particular case, it seems neither the family nor the police think the public can help them find Gus. Until the police make a public appeal for information, we have to respect that. The police have overseen an extensive search with professional search and rescue organizations and have not asked for volunteers to help search. They don't seem to think they need help, at least not right now, and they may never ask.

So, what's the story if the police don't ask for public assistance? It's the same story you should always try to get: the human side of the story. The family and community tell us stories about Gus. The family tells us about their struggles every day, to sleep and wake up every morning, waiting to find Gus while knowing he will likely be dead when they do. When Gus is found, you likely will be the first, or one of the first, reporters called. If there's foul play involved, same thing. If a family member is involved, same thing. Because you just built rapport with police, search and rescue, the larger community, neighbors, and the family.

I'm sure you're all bored to tears by now. Maybe even scrolled and rolled past my post. But I did want to answer these questions. The answers are not short and sweet, but they are very simple to follow in practice. I know publications exist that do not even consider following them, but in my opinion, that's because they aren't looking for answers, they are looking to stir the pot.

 

[jepop]

This thread keeps circling on Jonica and whether she was trespassing. I covered that in a previous post, no one was charged and the legal elements were not met, so there is nothing useful to be gained by rearguing it.

What I want to talk about is why someone would go out there in the first place. I read a heap of missing child cases overnight and the pattern is striking. Families are frantic and front and centre, timelines get laid out fast, photos are released within hours, everyone mobilises together. That is how most genuine wander off cases look.

This one does not look like that.

We do not have clear confirmed timing.
We do not have key facts confirmed by police.
We do not have the family out front begging for help.
We did not get a photo released straight away.

That absence is notable. It is not proof of anything but it is a deviation from the pattern and deviations deserve attention.

If my four year old vanished I would petition the devil himself to come and help search.

Jonica going there makes sense to me. If you have been reading timelines and press statements and you get that same sick feeling that something does not line up, you go and look. You ask questions. You try to piece the timeline together.

I would much rather we stop bashing reporters for asking the questions we all want answered and bring the conversation back to the case itself. The timeline, the communication gaps, the behaviour patterns. That is where the real focus should be.

Long Post incoming.

1) Re the Bolded in para 2 of your post. What should have been done differently in the first days of searching when there was hope that Gus would be located alive? Beginning on the night of Sat Sept 27th, going all day Sunday, Sunday night, Monday, Monday Night...Tuesday and on and on?

You post that "...in most genuine missing child cases..." X, Y & Z happens...so it is your opinion that X, Y &Z didn't happen in this case? And therefore we should be suspect about this being a genuine missing child case? Or we should be suss of the verity of the family, the grandparents, the cops? The verity of the police updates?

As to X, Y & Z being absent, are you saying the search was not frantic enough? That the community, police and other agencies didn't mobilise together fast enough? Family not up front enough? In accordance with what standard exactly?

At the end of my post I've linked a few reports, mostly compiled by the ABC, which moo serve to counter any not-frantic-enough charge. I've tried to place them in chronological order.

Your specific questions bolded.

We do not have clear confirmed timing. Do you mean when Gus went missing?. The timing has been communicated to the public. That is confirmation Imo.

The tree still fell in the forest even though we didn't see it.ie what makes you doubt that the police have not interviewed family about the timing, cross-checked and confirmed it?

Report by Nightly.com dated 3rd Oct (below) has info on deployment of crime scene detectives in this case. As do numerous ABC reports from this date going forward. Is it too much to assume they did their due diligence and Task force Horizon continues to do so with family and neighbours? Jmo.

We do not have key facts by Police? What key facts?. Police updates have been consistent and clear. Moo privacy and investigative integrity mean police are not going to release reports concerning alibis and interviews with family, neighbours and other investigative angles at this time. They are not going to get up there and say specifically we interviewed X and cleared them. Moo

Imo the 'key facts' have been updated and regularly released... no evidence of foul play, family is fully cooperative. What other key facts should be made public? Key facts regarding the search efforts have been released in detail and in a timely fashion.

Police cannot release key facts which do not exist Imo.

We do not have the family out front begging for help? I'm genuinely dumb struck by this point. There is no doubt help was forthcoming and enormous. There was no reason or need for family to publicly beg. The investigation up until this point has not required the family to publicly plead in front of cameras for anything. I cannot understand this point and have posted a few times regarding the moo oddity of why members of the public expect/ed the family to publicly plead/beg. The family released a statement through a spokesperson early on relaying their devastation and gratitude for all the help ( ABC report linked below). I guess that was not enough?

We did not get a photo released straight away?
I've seen the AI fake news and the manipulations of the released photo. That photo and future manipulations of it are on the internet forever.

Police and the community were, and at present Police still are, looking for a lost boy on a remote station. What he was wearing was described in detail. No other child was reported missing and it was hoped Gus would be located alive and quickly. (See linked Report re release of photo).

I don't understand why the timing of the photo release should be considered odd, suspicious or otherwise indicate that this is not a genuine missing child case. The delayed release of the photo did not cause anyone on the ground to miss seeing Gus Imo.

Petitioning the devil himself for help. I get the sentiment. Moo in this case though, the family did not have to 'petition the devil'. Community support was immediately overwhelming as soon as police released a statement on Sunday Sept 28th. (See link re community support below.).

So perhaps you contend the public was not informed quickly enough? Should Police have released a statement at 8pm on Sat night before even attempting their all night search? Should neighbours and people in Yunta have been mobilised out on that remote property in the dark, searching in chaos when the police had the equipment to do as calm, methodical and professional job as possible when there was hope Gus would be found that night?

Or perhaps the family should have gone around alerting their neighbours and community members in Yunta that night, even though they had the Police there searching? I don't think I am entitled to cast those sorts of judgements and claim because such and such didn't happen, something is amiss. To me, such a contention is more than unreasonable, it is absurd. Jmo

Links

30th Sept. Family Statement

'Our hearts are aching': Missing boy's family releases statement as search continues

The devastated family of a missing four-year-old boy has released a statement saying it is holding on to hope "he will be found and returned safely" as authorities and community members continue the search in mid-north South Australia.

www.abc.net.au

2nd Oct Re Photo Release

'They just don't disappear into thin air': Police release first image of missing boy

Police have released the first image of Gus since his disappearance, with almost 50 members of the Australian Defence Force joining the search for the four-year-old in mid-north South Australia.

www.abc.net.au

3rd Oct. Summary of search efforts beginning Sat 27th Dec.

What we know about search for missing boy on sheep station

Authorities are searching for a missing four-year-old boy on a sheep grazing station in the mid-north of South Australia. Here's what we know about the search so far.

www.abc.net.au

The Nightly.com: 3rd Oct Major Crime Scene Detectives deployed.

Gut-wrenching update in search for little Gus

Heartbreaking conversations are taking place at a property in the South Australian outback, as the search for a missing four-year-old child enters its seventh day.

thenightly.com.au

Asst Comm Ian Parrot.
"I think everyone in the public will expect that we would have major crime detectives involved in this, and this has some of the most experienced detectives that we have in our organisation.
“They have been actively assisting our local investigators as well as the searchers to make sure that we can actually cover off on every single element that may be an option in these circumstances.

3rd October. Summary of Community Support

Community comes together as search for missing 4yo Gus enters day 7

The search for missing four-year-old Gus has entered its seventh day, with no new signs of the boy.

www.abc.net.au

 

[jepop]

I'm quoting my own post because replying to @Ellery84 doesn't include what I said, and Ellery84 is asking me questions.







I think the main mistake is thinking that you go door knocking to get or break a story. I don't believe in door knocking as a reporting tactic. This especially won't work if the family has asked media to stay away. What do you accomplish by knocking on the door? The family already said they don't want media on their property and they don't want to talk to the media. They aren't going to answer your questions if you disregard their wishes. That is a dead end and does nothing but make the family refuse to ever speak to you. You're not doing your job as a reporter covering a local story if you can't get anyone to talk to you. And in this particular case, what does a reporter showing up unannounced think they're going to "catch" the family doing that provides insight into what happened? Did this reporter solve what happened to Gus? No. Did she learn any new tidbits about what happened the day he disappeared? No. Did she find out if they have thought of any new places where Gus could have wandered, whether around the buildings themselves or out on the land? No. This reporter did not help us get any closer to finding Gus.

First, you do a bit of research to find out if anyone in the family is involved in their community so you can touch base with someone who might help you get an interview with the family. You make phone calls to the police handling the case. You call neighbors. You call the school superintendent and/or principal. If the family belongs to a church/synagogue/mosque/etc., you call their minister/priest/rabbi/imam/etc. If the person is in local government or on local commissions, you call their colleagues. In all cases, you call first to set up an interview, you don't just show up unannounced. People are busy and nobody likes that (except you can show up at the police station, of course, but you're likely to still need to set up a meeting). The idea is to get an interview with someone in the family, right? You find an "in" to make this happen, you build trust, you respect the people who are helping you. You try to find out what kind of kid Gus is so you can share his personality and interests with readers/viewers. You learn more about the family. Are they involved in the community? Does anyone in the family have a history of arrests and if yes, for what? Do neighbors like the family? Are neighbors afraid of them? Do people at their place of worship like them? You're looking for patterns and depth.

Even if the family from the very start begs for media coverage, you don't just show up at their door. You call whoever they designate as their spokesperson to set up a time to interview the family. Sometimes the parents themselves make it clear that it's acceptable to contact them, but again, you call and set up a time. I don't understand why anyone would think it's right to show up at a grieving family's house unannounced. People need time to compose themselves so they can answer very painful and distressing questions.

In this particular case, it seems neither the family nor the police think the public can help them find Gus. Until the police make a public appeal for information, we have to respect that. The police have overseen an extensive search with professional search and rescue organizations and have not asked for volunteers to help search. They don't seem to think they need help, at least not right now, and they may never ask.

So, what's the story if the police don't ask for public assistance? It's the same story you should always try to get: the human side of the story. The family and community tell us stories about Gus. The family tells us about their struggles every day, to sleep and wake up every morning, waiting to find Gus while knowing he will likely be dead when they do. When Gus is found, you likely will be the first, or one of the first, reporters called. If there's foul play involved, same thing. If a family member is involved, same thing. Because you just built rapport with police, search and rescue, the larger community, neighbors, and the family.

I'm sure you're all bored to tears by now. Maybe even scrolled and rolled past my post. But I did want to answer these questions. The answers are not short and sweet, but they are very simple to follow in practice. I know publications exist that do not even consider following them, but in my opinion, that's because they aren't looking for answers, they are looking to stir the pot.

Thanks for a really interesting and informative post.! Really well laid out and makes sense to me.

re the paragraph I bolded above,
I just wanted to note that in fact there was extensive volunteer community searching in the first week. Both police and the family (through their statement) praised and were grateful for this help. Links in my most recent post and much more via extensive coverage by the ABC and local SA media.

Not sure but think there may not have been much diversity of sources posted on the threads here, possibly an over reliance on the DM?. Idk but the community rallied and their assistance was gratefully received in the first week before the search tragically shifted to a likely recovery and was scaled back. Moo

 

[MelmothTheLost]

If it was just a verbal anger outburst, I don't believe people would be so wound up about it. But unfortunately it was a verbal angry outburst with a gun in a hand.

Not to mention that if Josie had the gun in hand to shoot a snake, by definition that gun had to have been loaded.

 

[MelmothTheLost]

Carrying it to confront someone with an angry tone, and/or raising the barrel in such manner, is an invitation to a. get shot by the other individual, or b. be charged with a crime.

In the UK it would certainly cost the user their firearms licence.

I saw Josie in that video, and what I saw concerned me....moreso the angry tone, but sure, the carrying of the shotgun, and the manner it was raised. I don't believe there was a snake. That's just me.

Agreed.

 

[LookingForClues]

Thanks for a really interesting and informative post.! Really well laid out and makes sense to me.

re the paragraph I bolded above,
I just wanted to note that in fact there was extensive volunteer community searching in the first week. Both police and the family (through their statement) praised and were grateful for this help. Links in my most recent post and much more via extensive coverage by the ABC and local SA media.

Not sure but think there may not have been much diversity of sources posted on the threads here, possibly an over reliance on the DM?. Idk but the community rallied and their assistance was gratefully received in the first week before the search tragically shifted to a likely recovery and was scaled back. Moo

Thank you for reminding me of that. I do remember reading about the volunteers from the community.

And that brings up another point: The police are calling it a recovery now. There is no need for community volunteers. What's left is for the professionals. A community member does not need to be the person who finds a child's body after a month in the elements. It's traumatic enough for the professionals, who have training, experience and resources to help them through the emotional trauma. When I say "professionals," this includes any search and rescue organizations that may be involved. Not all SAR organizations are paid. Many SAR organizations are made up of folks who are volunteers, but they still have the resources, training and experience.

 

[Andreee]

Long Post incoming.

1) Re the Bolded in para 2 of your post. What should have been done differently in the first days of searching when there was hope that Gus would be located alive? Beginning on the night of Sat Sept 27th, going all day Sunday, Sunday night, Monday, Monday Night...Tuesday and on and on?

You post that "...in most genuine missing child cases..." X, Y & Z happens...so it is your opinion that X, Y &Z didn't happen in this case? And therefore we should be suspect about this being a genuine missing child case? Or we should be suss of the verity of the family, the grandparents, the cops? The verity of the police updates?

As to X, Y & Z being absent, are you saying the search was not frantic enough? That the community, police and other agencies didn't mobilise together fast enough? Family not up front enough? In accordance with what standard exactly?

At the end of my post I've linked a few reports, mostly compiled by the ABC, which moo serve to counter any not-frantic-enough charge. I've tried to place them in chronological order.

Your specific questions bolded.

We do not have clear confirmed timing. Do you mean when Gus went missing?. The timing has been communicated to the public. That is confirmation Imo.

The tree still fell in the forest even though we didn't see it.ie what makes you doubt that the police have not interviewed family about the timing, cross-checked and confirmed it?

Report by Nightly.com dated 3rd Oct (below) has info on deployment of crime scene detectives in this case. As do numerous ABC reports from this date going forward. Is it too much to assume they did their due diligence and Task force Horizon continues to do so with family and neighbours? Jmo.

We do not have key facts by Police? What key facts?. Police updates have been consistent and clear. Moo privacy and investigative integrity mean police are not going to release reports concerning alibis and interviews with family, neighbours and other investigative angles at this time. They are not going to get up there and say specifically we interviewed X and cleared them. Moo

Imo the 'key facts' have been updated and regularly released... no evidence of foul play, family is fully cooperative. What other key facts should be made public? Key facts regarding the search efforts have been released in detail and in a timely fashion.

Police cannot release key facts which do not exist Imo.

We do not have the family out front begging for help? I'm genuinely dumb struck by this point. There is no doubt help was forthcoming and enormous. There was no reason or need for family to publicly beg. The investigation up until this point has not required the family to publicly plead in front of cameras for anything. I cannot understand this point and have posted a few times regarding the moo oddity of why members of the public expect/ed the family to publicly plead/beg. The family released a statement through a spokesperson early on relaying their devastation and gratitude for all the help ( ABC report linked below). I guess that was not enough?

We did not get a photo released straight away?
I've seen the AI fake news and the manipulations of the released photo. That photo and future manipulations of it are on the internet forever.

Police and the community were, and at present Police still are, looking for a lost boy on a remote station. What he was wearing was described in detail. No other child was reported missing and it was hoped Gus would be located alive and quickly. (See linked Report re release of photo).

I don't understand why the timing of the photo release should be considered odd, suspicious or otherwise indicate that this is not a genuine missing child case. The delayed release of the photo did not cause anyone on the ground to miss seeing Gus Imo.

Petitioning the devil himself for help. I get the sentiment. Moo in this case though, the family did not have to 'petition the devil'. Community support was immediately overwhelming as soon as police released a statement on Sunday Sept 28th. (See link re community support below.).

So perhaps you contend the public was not informed quickly enough? Should Police have released a statement at 8pm on Sat night before even attempting their all night search? Should neighbours and people in Yunta have been mobilised out on that remote property in the dark, searching in chaos when the police had the equipment to do as calm, methodical and professional job as possible when there was hope Gus would be found that night?

Or perhaps the family should have gone around alerting their neighbours and community members in Yunta that night, even though they had the Police there searching? I don't think I am entitled to cast those sorts of judgements and claim because such and such didn't happen, something is amiss. To me, such a contention is more than unreasonable, it is absurd. Jmo

Links

30th Sept. Family Statement

'Our hearts are aching': Missing boy's family releases statement as search continues

The devastated family of a missing four-year-old boy has released a statement saying it is holding on to hope "he will be found and returned safely" as authorities and community members continue the search in mid-north South Australia.

www.abc.net.au

2nd Oct Re Photo Release

'They just don't disappear into thin air': Police release first image of missing boy

Police have released the first image of Gus since his disappearance, with almost 50 members of the Australian Defence Force joining the search for the four-year-old in mid-north South Australia.

www.abc.net.au

3rd Oct. Summary of search efforts beginning Sat 27th Dec.

What we know about search for missing boy on sheep station

Authorities are searching for a missing four-year-old boy on a sheep grazing station in the mid-north of South Australia. Here's what we know about the search so far.

www.abc.net.au

The Nightly.com: 3rd Oct Major Crime Scene Detectives deployed.

Gut-wrenching update in search for little Gus

Heartbreaking conversations are taking place at a property in the South Australian outback, as the search for a missing four-year-old child enters its seventh day.

thenightly.com.au

Asst Comm Ian Parrot.
"I think everyone in the public will expect that we would have major crime detectives involved in this, and this has some of the most experienced detectives that we have in our organisation.
“They have been actively assisting our local investigators as well as the searchers to make sure that we can actually cover off on every single element that may be an option in these circumstances.

3rd October. Summary of Community Support

Community comes together as search for missing 4yo Gus enters day 7

The search for missing four-year-old Gus has entered its seventh day, with no new signs of the boy.

www.abc.net.au

Thanks for the rational and sensible post. Well laid out too. I agree with your points!

 

[RedHaus]

And that brings up another point: The police are calling it a recovery now. There is no need for community volunteers. What's left is for the professionals.

RS&BBM
To your point, has anyone heard if cadaver dogs have been brought to the homestead or property? After draining the dam and not finding Gus, it would seem that either before that step or after, sweeping the area with cadaver dogs would be prudent.

Of course we may not be privy to those policing details, but I am curious about the extent to which a recovery mission is in force?

 

[SouthAussie]

We do not have key facts by Police? What key facts?. Police updates have been consistent and clear. Moo privacy and investigative integrity mean police are not going to release reports concerning alibis and interviews with family, neighbours and other investigative angles at this time. They are not going to get up there and say specifically we interviewed X and cleared them. Moo

Just to add .... the fact that the Major Crime squad visited the property (twice that we know of) to conduct their due diligence tells us that interviews have happened. imo

The SA Police Commissioner seems happy with the squad's solving of major crime, and appears to have confidence in his police force.

Eg: 2023/2024

https://www.police.sa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/1325946/Annual-Report-2023-24.pdf

Eg: Last week

More than 50 arrests in organised crime sting across SA

More than 50 people have been arrested and charged with more than 800 offences in a major Operation Ironside sting across South Australia linked to the encrypted AN0M app.

www.abc.net.au

 

[su5ie]

I'm quoting my own post because replying to @Ellery84 doesn't include what I said, and Ellery84 is asking me questions.







I think the main mistake is thinking that you go door knocking to get or break a story. I don't believe in door knocking as a reporting tactic. This especially won't work if the family has asked media to stay away. What do you accomplish by knocking on the door? The family already said they don't want media on their property and they don't want to talk to the media. They aren't going to answer your questions if you disregard their wishes. That is a dead end and does nothing but make the family refuse to ever speak to you. You're not doing your job as a reporter covering a local story if you can't get anyone to talk to you. And in this particular case, what does a reporter showing up unannounced think they're going to "catch" the family doing that provides insight into what happened? Did this reporter solve what happened to Gus? No. Did she learn any new tidbits about what happened the day he disappeared? No. Did she find out if they have thought of any new places where Gus could have wandered, whether around the buildings themselves or out on the land? No. This reporter did not help us get any closer to finding Gus.

First, you do a bit of research to find out if anyone in the family is involved in their community so you can touch base with someone who might help you get an interview with the family. You make phone calls to the police handling the case. You call neighbors. You call the school superintendent and/or principal. If the family belongs to a church/synagogue/mosque/etc., you call their minister/priest/rabbi/imam/etc. If the person is in local government or on local commissions, you call their colleagues. In all cases, you call first to set up an interview, you don't just show up unannounced. People are busy and nobody likes that (except you can show up at the police station, of course, but you're likely to still need to set up a meeting). The idea is to get an interview with someone in the family, right? You find an "in" to make this happen, you build trust, you respect the people who are helping you. You try to find out what kind of kid Gus is so you can share his personality and interests with readers/viewers. You learn more about the family. Are they involved in the community? Does anyone in the family have a history of arrests and if yes, for what? Do neighbors like the family? Are neighbors afraid of them? Do people at their place of worship like them? You're looking for patterns and depth.

Even if the family from the very start begs for media coverage, you don't just show up at their door. You call whoever they designate as their spokesperson to set up a time to interview the family. Sometimes the parents themselves make it clear that it's acceptable to contact them, but again, you call and set up a time. I don't understand why anyone would think it's right to show up at a grieving family's house unannounced. People need time to compose themselves so they can answer very painful and distressing questions.

In this particular case, it seems neither the family nor the police think the public can help them find Gus. Until the police make a public appeal for information, we have to respect that. The police have overseen an extensive search with professional search and rescue organizations and have not asked for volunteers to help search. They don't seem to think they need help, at least not right now, and they may never ask.

So, what's the story if the police don't ask for public assistance? It's the same story you should always try to get: the human side of the story. The family and community tell us stories about Gus. The family tells us about their struggles every day, to sleep and wake up every morning, waiting to find Gus while knowing he will likely be dead when they do. When Gus is found, you likely will be the first, or one of the first, reporters called. If there's foul play involved, same thing. If a family member is involved, same thing. Because you just built rapport with police, search and rescue, the larger community, neighbors, and the family.

I'm sure you're all bored to tears by now. Maybe even scrolled and rolled past my post. But I did want to answer these questions. The answers are not short and sweet, but they are very simple to follow in practice. I know publications exist that do not even consider following them, but in my opinion, that's because they aren't looking for answers, they are looking to stir the pot.

Absolutely fantastic post and brilliantly insightful. Do you mind if I quote it in the jack and lilly thread as their mom would be similar in regards to media and prefers to deal with it privately . And I think your post gives a great perspective on things and similarly the police have not asked for public assistance re searching

Because news is generally on tap today with reporters gaining access to every last minute detail . It can seem unusual to us the viewer when victims families don't open up themselves to some kind of morbid reality tv documentary and when they don't and because its become more commonplace rumours ,gossip and speculation of guilt or involvement seeps into public consciousness and runs riot

 

[Andreee]

Absolutely fantastic post and brilliantly insightful. Do you mind if I quote it in the jack and lilly thread as their mom would be similar in regards to media and prefers to deal with it privately . And I think your post gives a great perspective on things and similarly the police have not asked for public assistance re searching

Because news is generally on tap today with reporters gaining access to every last minute detail . It can seem unusual to us the viewer when victims families don't open up themselves to some kind of morbid reality tv documentary and when they don't and because its become more commonplace rumours ,gossip and speculation of guilt or involvement seeps into public consciousness and runs riot

I agree entirely. And I often think of the Sullivan case in that regard as well. I can totally understand the lack of public statements by victim families. Years ago before social media, there wasn't any of the extreme speculation and expectations of public having a right to know details about an ongoing case! It really is disgraceful some of the garbage people come up with regarding 'true crime' accusations, especially by the tabloids which further inflame things with their nontrue and inflammatory headlines. I try not to go to the DM website as much these days due to this.

 

[Andreee]

dbm

 

[BreakingNews]

This thread keeps circling on Jonica and whether she was trespassing. I covered that in a previous post, no one was charged and the legal elements were not met, so there is nothing useful to be gained by rearguing it.

What I want to talk about is why someone would go out there in the first place. I read a heap of missing child cases overnight and the pattern is striking. Families are frantic and front and centre, timelines get laid out fast, photos are released within hours, everyone mobilises together. That is how most genuine wander off cases look.

This one does not look like that.

We do not have clear confirmed timing.
We do not have key facts confirmed by police.
We do not have the family out front begging for help.
We did not get a photo released straight away.

That absence is notable. It is not proof of anything but it is a deviation from the pattern and deviations deserve attention.

If my four year old vanished I would petition the devil himself to come and help search.

Jonica going there makes sense to me. If you have been reading timelines and press statements and you get that same sick feeling that something does not line up, you go and look. You ask questions. You try to piece the timeline together.

I would much rather we stop bashing reporters for asking the questions we all want answered and bring the conversation back to the case itself. The timeline, the communication gaps, the behaviour patterns. That is where the real focus should be.

However this is not a usual missing person case. The mere fact that they live in a very remote area and are very private people, makes it different. What use has it done to date, releasing the photo of Gus? All it seemed to do was bring out negative comments about his appearance on social media.
There are issues that don't add up, but when a reporter has been told by LE and a 'no trespassing' signs at the entrance to Oak Park, she still went to the homestead. And returned the next day.
MOO, let the police do their job.

 

[LookingForClues]

Absolutely fantastic post and brilliantly insightful. Do you mind if I quote it in the jack and lilly thread as their mom would be similar in regards to media and prefers to deal with it privately . And I think your post gives a great perspective on things and similarly the police have not asked for public assistance re searching

Because news is generally on tap today with reporters gaining access to every last minute detail . It can seem unusual to us the viewer when victims families don't open up themselves to some kind of morbid reality tv documentary and when they don't and because its become more commonplace rumours ,gossip and speculation of guilt or involvement seeps into public consciousness and runs riot

Thank you for the kind words. At one point, I posted something similar on Lilly & Jack's case, but it didn't gain much traction. If you wish to share it, that's fine. Or I can repost it there myself.

 

[nao]

Moo...on SouthAussie's police link. You can read about the local crimes in Murray area. There were 2 people detained for trespassing on a property recently. It's quite a crime busy area actually...moo

 

[JLZ]

Moo...on SouthAussie's police link. You can read about the local crimes in Murray area. There were 2 people detained for trespassing on a property recently. It's quite a crime busy area actually...moo

Do you mean in Kanni? That's a three hours'-plus drive from Yunta. Those police regions are big.

 

[drsleuth]

This crime mapping Tool by SA Police shows not alot of crime in the recent years . You can search by postcode. Postcode for Oak Park Station is 5440. I searched by this postcode.



2024-2025

4 crimes

https://data.sa.gov.au/data/dataset/crime-statistics/resource/4a553fc6-71fe-4dac-8096-c29abc269c76?inner_span=True&filters=Postcode%20-%20Incident%3A5440

2023-2024

1 crime ( Homicide )

2022-2023

Not loading for some reason!

2021-2022

5 crimes

2000 - 2021

6 crimes

2019 - 2020

3 crimes

2018 - 2019

13 crimes

2017 - 2018

10 crimes

2016 - 2017

12 crimes

2015 - 2016

12 crimes

2014 - 2015

20 crimes

2013 - 2014

17 crimes

2012 - 2013

16 crimes

2011 - 2012

16 crimes

2010 - 2011

17 crimes

No data before 2010

Most of these crimes seem to be theft.