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

[FromGermany1]

dbm for reasons

 

[jepop]

Does anyone know if the actual property was searched by police & not just by the family? I'm not talking about the land or surrounding. I'm talking about the out buildings, house, sheds, etc? The actual structures.
A Small child could be easy to miss in so many out buildings/structures, kids can find the tiniest nook or cranny to hide in that could definitely be overlooked by even someone who's lived on the property for however many years.

'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

Oct 2nd

"We keep on reviewing our search patterns, and we've actually gone back to the homestead and we've searched it again for a third time.
We scoured this whole area again, just on the off-chance he's still within the 200 or 300 metres of the property here...".

I take it this means the buildings. There is no way the police didn't search buildings IMO. Missing child 101. It would have first been done in parallel with the initial land searches IMo.

This doesn't preclude the possibility that Gus may have been missed when searching structures. It's not on a par with searching a suburban home ofcourse. But I personally lean towards him being missed during the initial land searches. If I had to guess, my answer would be he is within 2 to 3kms of the homestead.

Adding, I think it was easier for the media to get footage of land searches. I don't think media were permitted to follow cs detectives and other police around as they searched inside buildings within the homestead area and other structures within the search perimeters. Jmo

 

[jepop]

For all we know, there could have been Gus' footprints everywhere around the homestead. And all kinds of other footprints, pawprints, and hoofprints around the homestead also. They just couldn't tell in which direction Gus went that late afternoon. And that may be because there were too many footprints, not none. imo


"Unfortunately, at no point has there been any significant evidence that has enabled us to really focus in a direction for our search."

Why the search for a missing 4yo in SA's outback was so challenging

A week of large-scale land and air searches have found no clues leading to the whereabouts of four-year-old Gus in outback South Australia.

www.abc.net.au

At no point have police ever said there were no shoe prints at all!. As you say, unfortunately they were unable to determine a direction of travel. That is all. Moo people may be misunderstanding this point. Jmo

 

[kurtneverdied]

For all we know, there could have been Gus' footprints everywhere around the homestead. And all kinds of other footprints, pawprints, and hoofprints around the homestead also. They just couldn't tell in which direction Gus went that late afternoon. And that may be because there were too many footprints, not none. imo


"Unfortunately, at no point has there been any significant evidence that has enabled us to really focus in a direction for our search."

Why the search for a missing 4yo in SA's outback was so challenging

A week of large-scale land and air searches have found no clues leading to the whereabouts of four-year-old Gus in outback South Australia.

www.abc.net.au

Yes, perhaps, but I don't think searchers and the people coordinating the search would be stupid enough to walk over the tracks, that's the first thing they would have carefully looked for and protected.

 

[kurtneverdied]

At no point have police ever said there were no shoe prints at all!. As you say, unfortunately they were unable to determine a direction of travel. That is all. Moo people may be misunderstanding this point. Jmo

Exactly, they have never mentioned it so I'm saying perhaps their weren't any?

 

[SouthAussie]

Yes, perhaps, but I don't think searchers and the people coordinating the search would be stupid enough to walk over the tracks, that's the first thing they would have carefully looked for and protected.

The police were searching at night, initially. By the time they got there, there had been a few hours of searching by family (and probably neighbours). Footprints all over the place.

imo

 

[kurtneverdied]

The 'professionals' were searching at night, initially.

But not in the dark. Flashlights.
I think it's just naive to think the professionals would not be careful with any tracks.
I also never said it's 100% confirmed there were no prints. I'm saying it's never been said there were any. I'm questioning whether it's just never been asked by the media or its never been said because there wasn't any prints.

 

[SouthAussie]

But not in the dark. Flashlights.
I think it's just naive to think the professionals would not be careful with any tracks.
I also never said it's 100% confirmed there were no prints. I'm saying it's never been said there were any. I'm questioning whether it's just never been asked by the media or its never been said because there wasn't any prints.

I haven't read anywhere that there weren't any footprints at the homestead. That is why I posted the quote of the officer stating that they couldn't tell in which direction Gus went. Because that is pretty much all that has been said.

I think that people would have been walking the homestead over and over, looking for Gus, before the police got there.

 

[twomoresmores]

I don't know how the family and LE can search for anyone without walking over the ground the missing person may have walked over. I'd imagine Gus' family were frantic and searching furiously for their little boy, running here and there and in doing so, disguised his footprints, if there were any. I can't imagine in those initial frantic moments that they thought, "let's tread carefully and move slowly so as not to disturb his footprints". And if they did think about it, I expect they never imagined it was going to get to the stage where they needed to be able to follow footprints to find him.
Same with LE. How do they search using dogs, themselves, quad bikes, horses etc etc without standing on the very ground Gus may have walked on?
JMO.

 

[musicaljoke]

But not in the dark. Flashlights.
I think it's just naive to think the professionals would not be careful with any tracks.
I also never said it's 100% confirmed there were no prints. I'm saying it's never been said there were any. I'm questioning whether it's just never been asked by the media or its never been said because there wasn't any prints.

Irrelevant material is omitted from the report. The evidence stated that Gus was playing in the sand pile. The evidence does not refute that. The police have stated that there is no evidence of foul play. The witnesses are deemed credible. If there had been no prints in the sand pile, then that would have been relevant and would be included in the report because it would indicate that perhaps Gus was not playing in the sand pile and a witness was not truthful.

If you expect the report to be providing answers to irrelevant questions, then you will see that there are thousands of things that are not included in the report.

 

[jepop]

Exactly, they have never mentioned it so I'm saying perhaps their weren't any?

Tracker deployed amid footprint find in search for missing 4yo

The search for a four-year-old boy who remains missing in South Australia's north days after he disappeared is shifting towards a "recovery" phase despite the discovery of a footprint, police have said.

www.abc.net.au

Above from Oct 1st re clear shoe print located approx 500 metres from homestead.

"Superintendent Syrus said 40 police cadets would join the search on Wednesday, and said the footprint was the first indication of "which way Gus might have gone"."

I'd suggest that this piece of info- which way Gus might have gone - was the salient point Sup. Syrus was attempting to convey to the public. At the time, I doubt he thought there was need to explicate the opposing side of the statement; ie that other shoe prints (compromised by earlier searches?) around the sand pile and within the homestead bounds, where Gus actually lived, did not potentially suggest a direction of travel. He probably wasn't focussed on the potential for future parsing of his words by members of the public. Jmo

Moo, no Gus shoe prints ( of any quality) anywhere could be an indicator of foul play or would be suspicious surely? But crime scene detectives have been there. They've photographed, they've interviewed family members, they've done their due diligence. Moo but see police statements as reported and posted throughout this thread.

For these reasons, I think it's safe to assume there is evidence that Gus was playing in the sand that afternoon and police have not found anything suspicious to suggest otherwise. (Jmo In addition to no physical evidence like shoe prints of whatever quality, that would include indicators of lying and cover up, which moo would need to involve at least three family members, unless one is to believe that SM, by herself, hid Gus so well whilst simultaneously caring for his one year old brother, that he has not been located, and then was able to exercise proverbial nerves of steel and an ability to appear genuinely clueless, not only to detectives but also to Gus' mother, father and other grandparent). Jmo

 

[BreakingNews]

I tried looking thru articles earlier on here & online to see if I could find a confirmation if the police did but all I seen was that the family did. Out of formality, here in the US, the police will conduct their own home/buildings search as well, they definitely do not go by the word of the homeowners/family because like I said something/someone can be easily missed & they want to cover all bases. Children are so small, they can hide in the tiniest of places. Police also have a good "think outside the box" frame of mind whereas someone else could think "they wouldn't hide in there", ya never really know. But it would be nice to know if they actually searched. I think back to that gentleman who had passed away on his own families property (suicide) & he wasn't found for years, that poor family was searching for him for a long time & the whole time he was in a hard to reach area somewhere near the limestone of their house.

I looked also. However I am sure police would have searched the buildings themselves. Maybe no media was allowed near the home, so it wasn't reported on.

 

[_sleuthdog_]

Personal observations I don't really understand is why is Jason so hostile towards media and staying in a house owned by Josie and Shannon.
Where is Gus's mum now? Will she return to the homestead in the future. What really is the family dynamics? Jason search for a day/night and did he just leave or asked to leave?
Did Jason find out his partner and son wouldn't be moving in with them afterall and make a desperate plan to take him. Could Gus be alive and at a residence somewhere with another party helping? I'm not one for suggesting scenarios that aren't plausible or realistic either. In the whole craziness of this case it doesn't seem that "out there" to me.

Josh

 

[kurtneverdied]

Josh

 

[kurtneverdied]

Irrelevant material is omitted from the report. The evidence stated that Gus was playing in the sand pile. The evidence does not refute that. The police have stated that there is no evidence of foul play. The witnesses are deemed credible. If there had been no prints in the sand pile, then that would have been relevant and would be included in the report because it would indicate that perhaps Gus was not playing in the sand pile and a witness was not truthful.

If you expect the report to be providing answers to irrelevant questions, then you will see that there are thousands of things that are not included in the report.

Police can't or don't want to say they suspect foul play even if they do. It could jeopardize potential suspects.
They are trying to stay on good terms with the family. Nothing they say should be taken as fact.
Particularly the witnesses are creditable.
I never expected police to say there was or wasn't prints in any report. I'd expect them to not mention it which they have otherwise it would fuel theories.

 

[kurtneverdied]

I don't know how the family and LE can search for anyone without walking over the ground the missing person may have walked over. I'd imagine Gus' family were frantic and searching furiously for their little boy, running here and there and in doing so, disguised his footprints, if there were any. I can't imagine in those initial frantic moments that they thought, "let's tread carefully and move slowly so as not to disturb his footprints". And if they did think about it, I expect they never imagined it was going to get to the stage where they needed to be able to follow footprints to find him.
Same with LE. How do they search using dogs, themselves, quad bikes, horses etc etc without standing on the very ground Gus may have walked on?
JMO.

I have to disagree. One of the first things you would do is try and work out which way he went and it would be obvious to have a look. To eliminate every trace if footprints would take a fair effort especially with only 3 searching and then a professional search wrecks the rest before they even start looking?

 

[kurtneverdied]

Tracker deployed amid footprint find in search for missing 4yo

The search for a four-year-old boy who remains missing in South Australia's north days after he disappeared is shifting towards a "recovery" phase despite the discovery of a footprint, police have said.

www.abc.net.au

Above from Oct 1st re clear shoe print located approx 500 metres from homestead.

"Superintendent Syrus said 40 police cadets would join the search on Wednesday, and said the footprint was the first indication of "which way Gus might have gone"."

I'd suggest that this piece of info- which way Gus might have gone - was the salient point Sup. Syrus was attempting to convey to the public. At the time, I doubt he thought there was need to explicate the opposing side of the statement; ie that other shoe prints (compromised by earlier searches?) around the sand pile and within the homestead bounds, where Gus actually lived, did not potentially suggest a direction of travel. He probably wasn't focussed on the potential for future parsing of his words by members of the public. Jmo

Moo, no Gus shoe prints ( of any quality) anywhere could be an indicator of foul play or would be suspicious surely? But crime scene detectives have been there. They've photographed, they've interviewed family members, they've done their due diligence. Moo but see police statements as reported and posted throughout this thread.

For these reasons, I think it's safe to assume there is evidence that Gus was playing in the sand that afternoon and police have not found anything suspicious to suggest otherwise. (Jmo In addition to no physical evidence like shoe prints of whatever quality, that would include indicators of lying and cover up, which moo would need to involve at least three family members, unless one is to believe that SM, by herself, hid Gus so well whilst simultaneously caring for his one year old brother, that he has not been located, and then was able to exercise proverbial nerves of steel and an ability to appear genuinely clueless, not only to detectives but also to Gus' mother, father and other grandparent). Jmo

There is no mention by police there is evidence of Gus playing in the dirt so that cannot be considered fact.
Police aren't going to say anything or any evidence or views that makes any suspect become less welcoming to questions etc.
They are not going to say they suspect foul play until and if someone gets arrested because it's not in their interests to let suspects know what they are really thinking.
If information is left out of a report then they likely don't want to release that. There is no mention of anything other than publicising the lone boot print. There happy to share that but information and say like you quoted: was the first indication of "which way Gus might have gone". Well IMO I interpreted that as literally the first indication. No prints leading anywhere from the dirt pile.

 

[jepop]

There is no mention by police there is evidence of Gus playing in the dirt so that cannot be considered fact.
Police aren't going to say anything or any evidence or views that makes any suspect become less welcoming to questions etc.
They are not going to say they suspect foul play until and if someone gets arrested because it's not in their interests to let suspects know what they are really thinking.
If information is left out of a report then they likely don't want to release that. There is no mention of anything other than publicising the lone boot print. There happy to share that but information and say like you quoted: was the first indication of "which way Gus might have gone". Well IMO I interpreted that as literally the first indication. No prints leading anywhere from the dirt pile.

Just in regard to shoe prints.

I can't agree with the inferences and conclusions you draw; namely that physical evidence of Gus' presence that day (such as shoe prints) must be absent from around the homestead area and sand pile, because police chose to inform the public that a shoe print was located 500 metres from the homestead which they hoped ( at the time) would give some indication of direction of travel.. I've already outlined my logic, we fundamentally disagree, so best to just leave it there. Moo.