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

[seasideForest]

MOO
Sadly a lot of people find it difficult to admit when they've done something wrong, even when its an accident. It seems in some people's minds, its much easier to run away from or hide the truth.

MOO

RSBMFF
Or easier to try and blame somebody else.

A bit off-topic, but fwiw I grew up in a family where it was generally best not to admit to having done something wrong not even wrong 'by accident'. Much better to blame somebody else, and that included adults blaming children... For me up into my 30s admitting to a mistake felt like I was about to be emotionally annihilated. The cause in our family's case is multi-generational trauma and I've been able to move beyond it only through trauma therapy. Others in my family have not moved beyond the instinct to blame others... or even done any therapy. Before I was in therapy I didn't even understand why I so badly wanted to find out 'who was at fault' in every day life situations rather than anything tragic like this case or cases where there are legal implications. It wasn't till I was deep in therapy that the fear of impending emotional annihilation came up. I'm not excusing my past behaviour but trying to explain how it could come about since my family will not be the only family around with such behaviour. otoh I cannot imagine trying to run from this amount of 'mistake' or accident or whatever it was. But again, people are different and react differently.

JMO

 

[seasideForest]

Yes they can iMO. Concrete is actually porous so properly trained dogs can get the scent even if buried many feet down, is my understanding

JMO

Correct. Somebody even provided a link from the BBC explaining it all, further upthread.

 

[musicaljoke]

It's hard for me to believe that this firearms charge has no connection to this missing child incident. It seems like it is a minor infraction of some kind. WHY bother to bring the simple charges against someone in the middle of a possible homicide case?

I feel like there was some strategy involved. Maybe they wanted the two grandmothers to be separate from each other long enough for the detectives to speak to one or both of them alone?

Arresting someone is a big deal. Police can't just arrest a person without good reason. If they wanted to speak to the grandparents separately, then they could simply bring them in for questioning. And no doubt, that has already happened.

It may yet turn out that the firearms charge is related to the missing boy, but I suspect that if and when it happens, the firearms charge will be dropped.

 

[linge]

Perhaps the guns are all in Josie’s name so the silencer was seen to be Josie’s too?

I don’t think the gun is important here. The separation of the two non-cooperators is. That gives each a chance to speak unheard by the other. Maybe not even speak, if loyalty to the other was a concern. Plenty can be communicated non-verbally - for example, likely places to search.

It’s interesting we now have both not cooperating rather than one. Why is this? Misplaced loyalty? Annoyance at the charging of Josie? Fear about consequences?

What I keep thinking is why doesn’t one of them relieve their daughter’s agony and at least indicate where Gus is? Surely their daughter has confronted one or both? To ignore that agony is beyond callous MOO.

Think your questions here are important ones. I'm very curious if the second one stopped cooperating with SAPOL before or right after the firearms arrest.

From cases I've followed, it doesn't seem very uncommon for the partner of someone suspected of a crime who was initially helpful to LE to then stop helping and take the 'side' of that partner being investigated against police, particularly as the investigation ramps up enough to start feeling harassed. A lot of the time it seems to be feeling sorry for the partner ('they're all alone,' 'no one else believes them,' 'they need me,' 'the cops are picking on them,' 'it's not fair'), either believing innocence ('they could never') or feeling guilty, like it's a betrayal, for doubting innocence (or being made to feel guilty for it; 'You know me better than anyone, how could you believe I could ever kill someone?' paraphrasing many a killer), loyalty, as you say, getting sucked back into the 'we're a team, we're in this together, it's us against the world' mindset. Feelings of love, trust, history, loyalty, obligation don't just switch off when someone you have deep connections with is suspected of a terrible crime, they're both powerful forces that drive decisions all on their own and also things that can be actively manipulated by others.

But if this arrest was used as an opportunity to separate and question them, and the way it played out ended in the second one ending cooperation, it's possible something in the course of it made the previously cooperative non-suspect (or their lawyer) realize they were beginning to be implicated in this too, if they helped in a cover up or something of that nature. Or if somehow wholly innocent and genuinely in the dark as to what happened to Gus, possibly been shocked by the implications of the questions being asked, didn't believe it was possible the other could do what the police were suggesting, went into denial, whatever. Or even just realized that their own answers were beginning to make the suspect look more guilty, despite maybe initially believing that cooperating would help prove innocence. And any of those things could have been the push needed to comply with what the suspect probably already wanted, which was for them to help stonewall SAPOL, be a united front giving them nothing more than they already have.

JMO.

 

[GlobeFireCandle]

Wether you were innocent or guilty, you would be feeling harassed after months of this, I can imagine it is very stressful

 

[linge]

Wether you were innocent or guilty, you would be feeling harassed after months of this, I can imagine it is very stressful

I agree, but think it would be a huge change when it swung from being treated with the sympathy, deference, and support as victims of a tragedy to open suspicion, more pointed questions, and antagonism directed at a suspect. Now when you see police searching, they're looking for where you hid the body, looking for evidence of a crime they believe you committed, not just trying to bring the remains of your grandson home to you. Whether innocent or guilty, the whole script flipped on them with the major crime announcement.

 

[Lonicera]

I admit that I don’t understand this grandmother’s attitude: why is she so hostile? It’s not a normal attitude for a grandmother worried about her grandson

 

[JLZ]

It’s interesting we now have both not cooperating rather than one. Why is this? Misplaced loyalty? Annoyance at the charging of Josie? Fear about consequences?

What I keep thinking is why doesn’t one of them relieve their daughter’s agony and at least indicate where Gus is? Surely their daughter has confronted one or both? To ignore that agony is beyond callous MOO.

(snipped for focus)
'Not co-operating' is a label that police have applied and whose appropriateness the grandparents have disputed ("devastated" etc). I don't know what the facts are behind the label. For all I know the only basis is that the grandparents have asserted some legal rights while still attempting to assist police. Perhaps one or both of them does not know what happened to Gus--that would mean that police are wrong, I won't say as usual but it's not particularly uncommon. Regardless of whether they are wrong they are manipulating public opinion to generate just such reactions as your second paragraph quoted above. I think you are unfair.

 

[SouthAussie]

NB: firearms act lets police enter a property without a warrant. They have their thinking caps on.

They don't need the Firearms Act for that, since November last year (2025).


"Police are being given stronger search and entry powers to investigate high risk missing persons cases, following the passage of key legislation through State Parliament.

The laws give police greater powers when seeking to enter a premises to investigate high risk missing persons cases

The reform expands police powers, by allowing senior police officers to authorise a police officer to enter a premises, vehicle, vessel or other place without the owner’s consent if they reasonably suspect that either a high risk missing person or information that may assist in locating the person is there.

An authorisation given by a senior police officer remains in force for a maximum period of up to 48 hours, until the missing person is located, or the authorisation is revoked (whichever occurs sooner).

The new laws will also allow police to apply to a Supreme Court judge for a warrant to enter and search a premises in relation to a high risk missing person investigation for a longer period in certain circumstances.

The laws are based on similar laws already in effect in Queensland."

https://www.agd.sa.gov.au/news/stronger-police-powers-for-high-risk-missing-persons-cases

 

[Mandi3020]

I humbly recognize that I am also a grandmother and that I do not understand this attitude. What does it mean? That no one should know what happened to Gus? Does she think she’s all-powerful?

I am also a grandma, and I do not understand the attitude either. I also do not understand the “misplaced loyalty,” suggestion between the grandmas. I know loyalty occurs between couples, but when it involves the health, wellbeing and safety of a grandchild, I don’t get it. My husband and I have been together for 47 years, married nearly 43, and if I thought he was responsible in any way of harming either one of our grandchildren, I’d sing like a canary.

My loyalties would be to my grandchildren.

jmo

 

[linge]

I am also a grandma, and I do not understand the attitude either. I also do not understand the “misplaced loyalty,” suggestion between the grandmas. I know loyalty occurs between couples, but when it involves the health, wellbeing and safety of a grandchild, I don’t get it. My husband and I have been together for 47 years, married nearly 43, and if I thought he was responsible in any way of harming either one of our grandchildren, I’d sing like a canary.

My loyalties would be to my grandchildren.

jmo

The world would be a better place if all parents (and grandparents) had your attitude towards it. Too many get it backwards and sacrifice the children to protect the partner from consequences.

 

[JLZ]

I am also a grandma, and I do not understand the attitude either. I also do not understand the “misplaced loyalty,” suggestion between the grandmas. I know loyalty occurs between couples, but when it involves the health, wellbeing and safety of a grandchild, I don’t get it. My husband and I have been together for 47 years, married nearly 43, and if I thought he was responsible in any way of harming either one of our grandchildren, I’d sing like a canary.

My loyalties would be to my grandchildren.

jmo

Perhaps, though, after your knowledge of 47-years-plus--depending on what sort of person your husband has proved himself to be--it would take a lot to convince you that he had indeed harmed your grandchild.

 

[FromGermany1]

Wether you were innocent or guilty, you would be feeling harassed after months of this, I can imagine it is very stressful

If the police weren't claiming, both parents were innocent, one might even get the idea, that the grandparents were trying to save their only daughter. MOO

 

[SouthAussie]

Perhaps, though, after your knowledge of 47-years-plus--depending on what sort of person your husband has proved himself to be--it would take a lot to convince you that he had indeed harmed your grandchild.

And while we do it all the time, comparing what we would do with what someone else would do is not a good barometer. Especially when we know next to nothing about the other people.

imo

 

[JLZ]

And while we do it all the time, comparing what we would do with what someone else would do is not a good barometer. Especially when we know next to nothing about the other people.

imo

I think Mandi's post was an expression of values and perplexity. It wasn't the argument, "If I was innocent in those circumstances, I'd do this; these people aren't doing this, therefore they aren't innocent."

 

[Dotta]

I wonder
how long Police have been knowing about illegal silencer?

Didn't they check the house for weapons when a reporter was threatened?
I mean
when the gun was being waved in front of a person?

I really think
the house should have been meticulously checked at the very beginning.
When the searches to find a boy proved unsuccessful.

Does it mean the weapons were checked only recently??
Last or this month??

But sure,
Police might have known about illegal silencer for a long time
but waited strategically for a perfect moment to strike.

Hmmm.....

What a strange case!

JMO

 

[HoneyBunOne]

I’m also wondering why it was Josie who was charged? I mean, both grandparents live on the property and I expect Shannon too should know how to use firearms considering her outback background? And maybe having some in her name? Why couldn’t she have been the one to be charged with illegal possession of the silencer?

And I was also wondering if they collect fingerprints at the station because of such charges? Could they have needed a pretext to collect Josie’s fingerprints, for example? I’m not familiar with Australian laws.

All moo and speculation.

I imagine that Josie is the only one with a gun licence and therefore the one that would be charged in relation to anything gun related at the home or property. In a healthy home and relationship, even on a farm, a gun is not an item you use every day. You would likely use it for pest control and for putting down any animal in need - sickly sheep, injured dogs etc. Therefore it's not likely that everyone on the property would need to use one. When it came time to use it, the person with the licence would do the deed I believe.

It appears Josie was the farm worker, and while Jess was around at least, Shannon was the caregiver of the children. In my mind, when it came to physical labour, that deems Shannon the least useful, or strong, of the 3 women on the farm We do not know when or even why Jess came back to the farm, the reason hasn't been stated as fact. It could have been because she broke up with Josh and needed somewhere to live, but maybe she was summoned back to help - maybe because it was a busy period (possibly shearing season as it would happen around the time of Gus' disappearance). If she was summoned to help it could mean she took over Shannon's role - but why would you want her back to help as it doesn't add another set of hands, it just replaces one as the kids need caring for? Or was Shannon beyond being able to help anyway, so Jess was another pair of hands? Was Shannon declining and unable to work the farm any more, so Jess was needed? Or was it merely because Jess moved away from Josh and either helped Josie, or replaced Shannon?

Necessity is a reason for doing many things on a farm, and because of that it's not always the best person for the job, or even an adequate person for the job, it's pitching in and getting things done any way that works. For that reason, in an ideal world, maybe Shannon would not be deemed a suitable care giver but you just have to get on with it on a farm. The sheep, fences, dams, shedding etc doesn't care if you're aging, have a bad back, are sick, have dementia etc

MOO

 

[Dotta]

I imagine that Josie is the only one with a gun licence and therefore the one that would be charged in relation to anything gun related at the home or property. In a healthy home and relationship, even on a farm, a gun is not an item you use every day. You would likely use it for pest control and for putting down any animal in need - sickly sheep, injured dogs etc. Therefore it's not likely that everyone on the property would need to use one. When it came time to use it, the person with the licence would do the deed I believe.

It appears Josie was the farm worker, and while Jess was around at least, Shannon was the caregiver of the children. In my mind, when it came to physical labour, that deems Shannon the least useful, or strong, of the 3 women on the farm We do not know when or even why Jess came back to the farm, the reason hasn't been stated as fact. It could have been because she broke up with Josh and needed somewhere to live, but maybe she was summoned back to help - maybe because it was a busy period (possibly shearing season as it would happen around the time of Gus' disappearance). If she was summoned to help it could mean she took over Shannon's role - but why would you want her back to help as it doesn't add another set of hands, it just replaces one as the kids need caring for? Or was Shannon beyond being able to help anyway, so Jess was another pair of hands? Was Shannon declining and unable to work the farm any more, so Jess was needed? Or was it merely because Jess moved away from Josh and either helped Josie, or replaced Shannon?

Necessity is a reason for doing many things on a farm, and because of that it's not always the best person for the job, or even an adequate person for the job, it's pitching in and getting things done any way that works. For that reason, in an ideal world, maybe Shannon would not be deemed a suitable care giver but you just have to get on with it on a farm. The sheep, fences, dams, shedding etc doesn't care if you're aging, have a bad back, are sick, have dementia etc

MOO

Does it mean
farmers don't employ seasonal helpers?

I mean
so much hard farm work
and here we have two elderly people (over 70) + mother who recently gave birth
and I'm not sure was up to hard physical work.

JMO

 

[gerardo20]

From the DM article stated by volunteer searcher Mark Aldridge:

"'Information available since the first days of the search gets written off as nonsense, but when an independent team get together, all of a sudden access roads are blocked off by property owners, and police say they are going to helicopter in with dogs.' "

This searcher is implying the owners (Murrays?) are hampering search efforts.

 

[HoneyBunOne]

Does it mean
farmers don't employ seasonal helpers?

I mean
so much hard farm work
and here we have two elderly people (over 70) + mother who recently gave birth and I'm not sure was up to hard physical work.

JMO

They may have - shearing sheep is very hard work. That's one task you might outsource. However, any external workers require payment, and many farmers are doing it tough. They can be asset rich but money poor. Yes, Josie and Shannon are 70+, but are country people and farming is in their blood. I've seen my fair share of older farmers, some with limps, some looking like they're on deaths door for years, and they all put many people to shame. It's in the blood of many Aussies, farmers especially, to just get on with it. No whinging, no talking about how you feel, just putting one foot in front of the other and working sun up to sun down. They are really quite amazing, and have my utmost admiration for the work they do. However, I'm not a fan of them not voicing their struggles, it often doesn't end well.