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

[SouthAussie]

zesszesszess answered a question on here about the neighbouring property, Tiverton, belonging to Fleur Tiva . I shall go way back and try to find it

No need to go back and find it. As Fleur explained, the Tivers have been neighbours of Gus' family for generations.
But Fleur lives in the Adelaide Hills, not on her family's property.

imo

 

[Lady-J]

I took this as Fleur Tivers family

DBM

zesszesszess​

Active Member​

• Nov 10, 2025

Thank you and welcome!!!

Is Tiverton associated with the Tiver family?

Yes, that's correct. Tiverton was originally known as Pat's Well, before being acquired by the Tiver family.

 

[Lady-J]

No need to go back and find it. As Fleur explained, the Tivers have been neighbours of Gus' family for generations.
But Fleur lives in the Adelaide Hills, not on her family's property.

imo

She acted like Gus definitely wandered off and to ‘stop with the conspiracy theories’ as if she was nearby and there was no traffic on that road

 

[Kemug]

Maybe Gus hit his head on something, and . . . . I dunno.

 

[Lady-J]

Dbm

 

[TootsieFootsie]

Last night on ABC Radio, somebody called in to answer a question. He then said that he and his friend "Fleur" are the only 2 people actually searching for Gus. He was then put back on task of answering the question.

That would be the programme I listen to, Nightlife.
It would be the quiz that starts at midnight. I have yet to listen to it.

It's there for listening to on ABC Nightlife. The quiz part is The Mighty Challenge.

Updated to say I hadn't read all the posts when I posted.
Seems it was not The Mighty Challenge but the quiz that starts at 2am where you have to answer two questions.

ABC Overnights I think it's called.

 

[TootsieFootsie]

On ABC Nightlife from Monday to Thursday people have to answer the 25th question to win.
Monday to Friday Nightlife quiz at midnight, there is no draw.

The quizzes on Overnight that start at 2am do have two questions and you go in a draw.

 

[TootsieFootsie]

Here is the link to listen to last nights ABC overnights programme

Overnights with Trevor Chappell and Michael Pavlich - ABC listen

Trevor Chappell and Michael Pavlich offer you great music, and interesting Australian and international guests.

www.abc.net.au

I think they start off with the quiz

 

[BreakingNews]

That would be the programme I listen to, Nightlife.
It would be the quiz that starts at midnight. I have yet to listen to it.

It's there for listening to on ABC Nightlife. The quiz part is The Mighty Challenge.

Updated to say I hadn't read all the posts when I posted.
Seems it was not The Mighty Challenge but the quiz that starts at 2am where you have to answer two questions.

ABC Overnights I think it's called.

Yes. With the time differences, I got confused. It was Overnights.

Overnights - ABC listen

On Overnights, there's great music and interesting guests from Australia and all parts of the globe.

www.abc.net.au

 

[Bats]

It's very likely a bit of both due diligence and also searching a place he could be regardless of how he got there.
The police statements aren't going to say they suspect foul play unless they have arrested someone. They could have someone under surveillance and want them to feel comfortable so they may say or do something. The announcement of searches can cause anyone under surveillance to also do something or even a change in their attitude could lead LE to "test" them again. It's naive to think LE are not considering absolutely anything. We are just not going to see them change what they say in statements because it's not in the cases best interests.
LE best chance is via surveillance or someone coming clean because unless they find Gus any evidence is now likely gone.
IMOO I feel the odds of what happened is he's had an accident and for whatever reasons he was hidden.
No other reason even cones close to these odds as the likely scenario.

Yes, i agree. I think in this scenario, the police won't announce if they did suspect foul play.

The most current Police statement says there is "no evidence of foul play". If there was a skerrick of evidence that suggested foul play, then they wouldn't have made that statement.

If the police had someone under surveillance, then they would have needed evidence to present to a court. A judge would need to grant them permission to conduct surveillance and again, wouldn't have made the statement "no evidence of foul play", as it would be deceiving the public - not allowed.

MOO

 

[spiritualdreaming]

Yes. With the time differences, I got confused. It was Overnights.

Overnights - ABC listen

On Overnights, there's great music and interesting guests from Australia and all parts of the globe.

www.abc.net.au

So starts roughly at 3.30.00, his name is Bob and he basically is seeking volunteers to help look for Gus, as only 2 people are looking for Gus. Himself and Fluer, they also both believe Gus is still alive.

 

[kurtneverdied]

The Threshold of "Reasonable Cause to Suspect"
Police powers do not always require irrefutable "evidence" upfront; often, the lower threshold of "reasonable cause to suspect" is enough to initiate many investigative actions. This means that if detectives, such as those from the Missing Persons Section of the Major Crime Investigation Branch handling Gus Lamont's case, develop internal suspicions or "multiple lines of inquiry" based on the circumstances (e.g., lack of a body, lack of clues after extensive searching, expert opinions), this can justify further action, including surveillance.

Above is based off the link below.

Police Powers and Forensic Procedures

lsc.sa.gov.au

 

[Ellery84]

The Threshold of "Reasonable Cause to Suspect"
Police powers do not always require irrefutable "evidence" upfront; often, the lower threshold of "reasonable cause to suspect" is enough to initiate many investigative actions. This means that if detectives, such as those from the Missing Persons Section of the Major Crime Investigation Branch handling Gus Lamont's case, develop internal suspicions or "multiple lines of inquiry" based on the circumstances (e.g., lack of a body, lack of clues after extensive searching, expert opinions), this can justify further action, including surveillance.

Above is based off the link below.

Police Powers and Forensic Procedures

lsc.sa.gov.au

Maybe that’s why the police are ruling things out such as mines, dam, line searches.

There is still a lack of body or any material evidence whatsoever, that can be connected to Gus. There is a lack of clues after intensive searching… would this enable SAPOL to be in a better position to obtain a surveillance warrant to assist them in gathering human intelligence to potentially solve the case?

IMO

 

[Ellery84]

So starts roughly at 3.30.00, his name is Bob and he basically is seeking volunteers to help look for Gus, as only 2 people are looking for Gus. Himself and Fluer, they also both believe Gus is still alive.

I stopped when I got to the Cold Play song, I couldn’t stand listening to it anymore. Never made it to the part with Bob. Bummer.

 

[Greenie75]

I stopped when I got to the Cold Play song, I couldn’t stand listening to it anymore. Never made it to the part with Bob. Bummer.

I, too, listened to this whole section. I persisted well beyond the Cold Play song, but didn't hear the part with Bob either. This has me quite interested. I am wondering if they are looking for Gus on the Tiver property or on Oak Park Station.

 

[jepop]

Yes, i agree. I think in this scenario, the police won't announce if they did suspect foul play.

The most current Police statement says there is "no evidence of foul play". If there was a skerrick of evidence that suggested foul play, then they wouldn't have made that statement.

If the police had someone under surveillance, then they would have needed evidence to present to a court. A judge would need to grant them permission to conduct surveillance and again, wouldn't have made the statement "no evidence of foul play", as it would be deceiving the public - not allowed.

MOO

Agree with you again! Moo the statement "no evidence of foul play" is a statement which has been deliberately, actively and truthfully made by police each time they have updated the public.

Police would omit such a statement if it wasn't true, rather than proactively and knowingly deceive the public. Moo such a proactive lie has the potential to needlessly and stupidly undermine public trust in police services. Moo I would think this is something Australia's policing services want to avoid of course and I'm guessing there may be some sort of relevant protocol at a policy level that addresses that Jmo.

I think we can look to a circumstantially very different missing child case to further illustrate the point. The circumstances of Cleo Smith's disappearance from a public campground in WA were quite distinct from this case Imo.

But moo one thing that both cases have in common is the regular detailed updates provided to the public. During the Cleo Smith investigation, WA police never made definitive public statements along the lines of "no evidence of foul play". And within the first week of the investigation the public were informed that the evidence pointed towards a 3rd party abduction as opposed to wandering and becoming lost. As with this case, police were running a parallel investigation (search surrounding area and looking into any foul play angles). One difference in Cleo's case was that a 3rd party foul play angle was supported by evidence. In this case, police have not uncovered any evidence of foul play ( this has to include 3rd party or family involvement Imo).

Summary below including WA Police's updates to the public after Cleo Smith went missing.

Eighteen days of hell: How the desperate hunt for little Cleo Smith had Australia and the world on edge

The sentencing of Cleo Smith's kidnapper marks the closure of an important chapter in a case that captured the world's attention for 18 tense days.

www.abc.net.au

 

[TootsieFootsie]

The host of the ABC Overnights didn't stop Bob from talking.
He'd already answered his two questions for the draw and only then did Bob talk about needing people for a search for a lost boy.

The host didn't cut him off but suggested he give the details to the producer who the entrants talk to when they ring up.
Then he went on to the next person.

 

[statt#1]

Other than a report of a missing child, police seem to have uncovered absolutely no evidence of a missing child in this case, unless said evidence is being kept from public knowledge.

 

[Kemug]

It's a bit like the case of the missing Jennie Kehlet, isn't it? Is she down a mineshaft in Western Australia, or isn't she? At least we know for certain that she was near one. We don't even know that in Gus's case.

 

[BreakingNews]

I, too, listened to this whole section. I persisted well beyond the Cold Play song, but didn't hear the part with Bob either. This has me quite interested. I am wondering if they are looking for Gus on the Tiver property or on Oak Park Station.

I can't imagine they would actually be searching for Gus at the Oak property unless specifically asked to buy Gus' family.