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

[NingNang]

No evidence of foul play vs. nothing is off the table. Hmmmm.

Both can be true. The police haven't yet found any evidence of foul play, but that doesn't mean they've ruled it out.

A truly baffling case. Unless the police know more than the public, it seems Gus vanished without a trace. No evidence of where he wandered off to and no sign of his remains, but also no actual evidence that foul play has occurred. I hope there are answers one day.

 

[Bats]

I’ve been absent from the main thread for a while for various reasons, but this is something I’ve been thinking about for some time and wanted to put to the group to get thoughts, particularly from anyone with legal or law-enforcement experience.

I want to ask a procedural question about police decision-making, using the wording of South Australian law, rather than speculate about motives or outcomes.

Under Division 1A of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA), the offence of criminal neglect is defined quite broadly.

Section 13B makes a few things explicit.

An act includes an omission and a course of conduct.
A child means a person under 16 years of age.
Harm includes detriment to the physical, mental or emotional wellbeing or development of a child, whether temporary or permanent.
A duty of care exists where a person is a parent, guardian, or has assumed responsibility for the child’s care.

Section 14 then provides that criminal neglect is made out where:

a child dies or suffers harm as a result of an act or omission,
the defendant had a duty of care,
the defendant was, or ought to have been, aware of an appreciable risk of harm, and
the defendant failed to take reasonable steps to protect the child, with that failure being serious enough to warrant a criminal penalty.

The offence does not require intent. It does not require identification of a specific moment where harm occurred. It expressly allows for courses of conduct, omissions, and situations where harm is inferred from the outcome.

Given that framework, I am trying to understand how police appear to be approaching this matter.

Based on the publicly described timeline, a four year old child was left outside for a significant period of time, then disappeared and is now presumed dead. On its face, that raises questions about omission, duty of care, foreseeable risk, and failure to take protective steps, which are precisely the elements Division 1A is designed to address.

So my question is not whether anyone is guilty. My question is procedural.

Does the timeline as publicly described fall outside Division 1A, and if so, why?

Because if it does not, then the absence of any criminal neglect charge, or even public reference to that offence, seems to require some explanation. Either investigators believe one or more statutory elements are clearly not satisfied, or they are operating on facts materially different from those that have been publicly stated.

If the former, it would be useful to understand where police believe the threshold is not met.
If the latter, that suggests the public narrative may be incomplete.

This isn’t about blame. It’s about understanding how a law specifically designed to address neglect by omission is being applied, or not applied, in a case involving a missing four year old.

If anyone can shed light on how Division 1A is typically handled at this stage of an investigation, I’d genuinely appreciate it.

South AustraliaCriminal Law Consolidation Act 1935

I am not trained in legal matters so I can only express an opinion, if I may.

I would hazard a guess and say that since it is not known what happened to Gus, then how can it be criminal neglect? "Something" "may" have happened a minute after he was last checked on. Probably not, but just trying to make a point.

 

[su5ie]

I’ve been absent from the main thread for a while for various reasons, but this is something I’ve been thinking about for some time and wanted to put to the group to get thoughts, particularly from anyone with legal or law-enforcement experience.

I want to ask a procedural question about police decision-making, using the wording of South Australian law, rather than speculate about motives or outcomes.

Under Division 1A of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA), the offence of criminal neglect is defined quite broadly.

Section 13B makes a few things explicit.

An act includes an omission and a course of conduct.
A child means a person under 16 years of age.
Harm includes detriment to the physical, mental or emotional wellbeing or development of a child, whether temporary or permanent.
A duty of care exists where a person is a parent, guardian, or has assumed responsibility for the child’s care.

Section 14 then provides that criminal neglect is made out where:

a child dies or suffers harm as a result of an act or omission,
the defendant had a duty of care,
the defendant was, or ought to have been, aware of an appreciable risk of harm, and
the defendant failed to take reasonable steps to protect the child, with that failure being serious enough to warrant a criminal penalty.

The offence does not require intent. It does not require identification of a specific moment where harm occurred. It expressly allows for courses of conduct, omissions, and situations where harm is inferred from the outcome.

Given that framework, I am trying to understand how police appear to be approaching this matter.

Based on the publicly described timeline, a four year old child was left outside for a significant period of time, then disappeared and is now presumed dead. On its face, that raises questions about omission, duty of care, foreseeable risk, and failure to take protective steps, which are precisely the elements Division 1A is designed to address.

So my question is not whether anyone is guilty. My question is procedural.

Does the timeline as publicly described fall outside Division 1A, and if so, why?

Because if it does not, then the absence of any criminal neglect charge, or even public reference to that offence, seems to require some explanation. Either investigators believe one or more statutory elements are clearly not satisfied, or they are operating on facts materially different from those that have been publicly stated.

If the former, it would be useful to understand where police believe the threshold is not met.
If the latter, that suggests the public narrative may be incomplete.

This isn’t about blame. It’s about understanding how a law specifically designed to address neglect by omission is being applied, or not applied, in a case involving a missing four year old.

If anyone can shed light on how Division 1A is typically handled at this stage of an investigation, I’d genuinely appreciate it.

South AustraliaCriminal Law Consolidation Act 1935

I feel this law could apply in many missing children's cases , Maddie mcCann for one being the most famous where negligence was clearly an issue

Many times when a young child is left alone in a situation with heightened danger, I feel the punishment is in the guilt the parents must feel but i do feel social status does affect whether charges are brought under the law you quote imo moo

 

[SouthAussie]

In this press conference for Trisha Graf, a reporter asks about Gus at the very end.

Investigation ongoing. Just 'last week' detectives were at Oak Park Station again to speak with the family, who are continuing to cooperate with police.

That is not a simple investigation. It's a 4 year old boy in a remote area, we are exploring ALL avenues (a huge emphasis on 'all' - have a listen) to do with locating Gus. Nothing is off the table.

We won't rest until we are satisfied we have done everything that we can to find him ...... We are throwing everything we can at that, and we continue to do that.

(from about the 11:28 mark in this video from Trisha's thread - thanks @TootsieFootsie )

Presser was 3 days ago. On Tuesday.

 

[su5ie]

I wish we had a last seen by anyone outside of the 3 present

 

[Deleted member 371916]

I wish we had a last seen by anyone outside of the 3 present

Surely Josh would’ve at least spoken to his son on the phone around the time of his disappearance. I’m confused why Josh or another family member hasn’t made a public appeal since Gus hasn’t been found . If I were in their situation and I knew nothing was being covered up and there was zero evidence of my son wandering then I’d be pleading for information just incase he has been abducted . I know that’s unlikely in such a remote area but it does explain Gus disappearing without a trace.

 

[Deleted member 371916]

This case is doing my head in, I can’t stop thinking about it, nothing adds up.
So many questions;

If a grandparent were the cause of my child’s death , as a mother I wouldn’t cover for them . Would Jess? I doubt it. Why would she do that?

If Jess was the cause of her son’s death would her parents cover for her? Maybe.

Would a child’s father cover up if he thought the grandparents were responsible for his sons death? I doubt it.

Would Jess tell Josh if she was the person responsible? Don’t know
If she did would Josh cover for her? Don’t know .

Why isn’t Josh making a public appeal for his beloved son?

Would Jess be likely to tell Josh if she suspected or knew one of her parents did something to Gus? I know I would if I were in that situation and I can’t see why a mother wouldn’t share that with her partner.

Would Jess know if Josie caused Gus’ death? Depends whether her and Josie actually left to tend the sheep together and she saw Gus alive before they both left.

Could Shannon have caused his death while Jess and Josie were gone and hid the body in the back of a vehicle for Josie to bury and they kept it a secret from Jess? Maybe but I imagine if that were the case Josie would’ve driven miles away so the grave wasn’t discovered and Jess would’ve noticed that.

Could Gus have been abducted? Yes but why isn’t someone in the family begging the public for information.

 

[Sarahlou]

Occam's razor thought. Because of the child's intellectual disabilities he was accidentally killed/killed by Jess with her grandparents covering up. This is the reason why the nucleus of 3 has not broken to the authorities.

Josh cannot make a public statement as he was, a/the reason he had to leave the homestead in the first instance. This is regarding his duty of care towards his children.

Why would a father live over a couple of hundred of kms away from his family, just because he does not get along with his one of his mother in laws.

Was Gus a victim of neglect/abuse from all 4 adults in the family. A reason why their has not been any public disclosure from them? All for one, one for all?

My opinion only

Who said he has intellectual disabilities? Or is that just what you think?

I still think he was gone long before he was reported missing. Especially if we find out the dad hadn't seen him for quite a while. That's one piece of information I'd love to know. The whole thing is baffling though.

 

[ChatteringBirds]

Occam's razor thought. Because of the child's intellectual disabilities he was accidentally killed...
Why would a father live over a couple of hundred of kms away from his family... Was Gus a victim of neglect/abuse from all 4 adults in the family. A reason why their has not been any public disclosure from them? All for one, one for all?
My opinion only

Quote snipped by me.

I don't think there has been anything indicating Gus has any disability.

His father was renovating a new house for the family.

Gus disappeared on one person's watch. Why would she take the responsibility on herself only, if this were some kind of cover-up?
Also, they don't actually all seem united, and they do seem devastated to me. Nothing indicates abuse nor neglect occurred in this family.

 

[su5ie]

Maybe it like hundreds of other missing persons eventually located within the search perimeter. He was missed

I could see a scenario where gus may have been harmed and him being brought for a secret burial in the doer upper bungalow but would all four cover for one another ,I suppose that's the big question

 

[Deleted member 371916]

<modsnip: Quoted post was removed> ... it’s impossible to know what’s going on behind the scenes. I give up!

 

[BreakingNews]

<modsnip: Quoted post was removed> ... it’s impossible to know what’s going on behind the scenes. I give up!

<modsnip: Quoted post was modsnipped> ... With what we have been given to work with via LE and msm, it leads to nothing. Poor little Gus. I hope he has met up with Sweet William Tyrrell.

 

[katydid23]

From the resent presser, it doesn't say wandering off has been ruled out. Police said they are exploring all avenues. Which is what they said from the start.

True. But I do find it interesting that they mentioned getting further statements from the family.

If it is a simple question of him wandering off, what more could the family say about that? Coupled with "nothing is off the table" it all sounds like they are circling back to the homestead. imo

 

[katydid23]

Yes. And perhaps also verifying the last person or CCTV camera to see Gus alive OTHER than the three women at the Homestead, such as family, neighbors, stores, service stations, hired hands, construction contractors, postpeople, delivery drivers, teachers, physicians, etc.

ETA: change 'schools' to 'teachers'.

Maybe, but I'd hope they'd had done a thorough job of that back at the start. It would have to be done quickly, while hired hands and delivery drivers are still able to be found and interviewed.

I think they have done most of what is described above----very few people had contact with little Gus, from what I've read so far.

I think those leads have been pretty well exhausted ---hence they are circling back to the start. JMO

 

[statt#1]

Maybe, but I'd hope they'd had done a thorough job of that back at the start. It would have to be done quickly, while hired hands and delivery drivers are still able to be found and interviewed.

I think they have done most of what is described above----very few people had contact with little Gus, from what I've read so far.

I think those leads have been pretty well exhausted ---hence they are circling back to the start. JMO

Is there any evidence of planned further searches? If no, and bearing in mind the reports that LE continue to speak with cooperative family, then what could LE be interested in? Do they think they missed a clue to where Gus wandered off to? Because...for me, in my humblest of opinions, if LE thinks they missed something...anything...other than that, then we have a completely different scenario.

 

[TMich6811]

Where are you little guy

 

[Springs4]

Doubt that will happen either - because there is no-one asking for updates; no family, no relatives, just no-one

You don't know that.

& neither do you

 

[Detective Willy]

I really don't think Gus is on the property and maybe he was not there when he was reported missing.

If Gus wandered off and died of natural causes, IMO he would have been found in the first week.

Police may have suspicions of what happened, but they will be playing the long game and comparing original statements to new statements and looking for discrepancies IMO.

If multiple people are involved, Police will be hoping that one eventually cracks under pressure.

 

[Deleted member 371916]

Is there any evidence of planned further searches? If no, and bearing in mind the reports that LE continue to speak with cooperative family, then what could LE be interested in? Do they think they missed a clue to where Gus wandered off to? Because...for me, in my humblest of opinions, if LE thinks they missed something...anything...other than that, then we have a completely different

 

[Deleted member 371916]

Is there any evidence of planned further searches? If no, and bearing in mind the reports that LE continue to speak with cooperative family, then what could LE be interested in? Do they think they missed a clue to where Gus wandered off to? Because...for me, in my humblest of opinions, if LE thinks they missed something...anything...other than that, then we have a completely different scenario.

I wish LE would hurry up and get to the bottom of this