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

[BreakingNews]

I also noticed this:

“The lawyers issued their first official joint statement on Friday, saying: “Andrew Ey and Casey Isaacs can confirm that we act for Josie Murray and Shannon Murray respectively.

“Our clients will not be participating in any interviews nor commenting any further save and except that they wish to release a brief joint comment namely:

“We are absolutely devastated by the media release of SAPOL Major Crime. The family has co-operated fully with the investigation and want nothing more than to find Gus and reunite him with his mum and dad.”

That last sentence sounds weird 'want nothing'. Is it a double negative, or an oxymoron or one of those things? It sounds how William Tyrrell ex foster mother talked

 

[Leafy]

I’ve posted plenty about why I never believed the wandered off theory, so I won’t rehash all of that again. It always felt wrong to me, and I’ve said that consistently from the start. What we’re seeing now doesn’t surprise me, even if it’s grim.

What I keep trying to do is put myself in the position of the person who knows the truth.

And I can’t get there.

I can imagine panic. I can imagine an accident or negligence. I can imagine that first moment where you realise something has gone terribly wrong and your brain is racing. But I keep hitting the same wall.

What could I have done that would make deceiving everyone feel like the better option?

Because this isn’t passive. This isn’t freezing up. This is an active choice made over and over again. Letting a massive search run. Letting people hope. Letting police, volunteers, neighbours waste time and energy while you know the truth. That’s not a single bad decision. That’s sustained behaviour.

So what does the truth look like in your mind if this feels preferable?

If it was an accident or negligence, owning up is horrific but it’s finite. Charges. Consequences. Public shame. But a cover up like this suggests something more. Something that makes the original truth feel completely unlivable. Something that turns this was a terrible accident into everything ends if this comes out.

Intoxication. Prior incidents. Serious negligence. Risk of other children being taken. Something about the circumstances that makes the truth indefensible even to yourself.

I’m not talking about cartoon evil. I’m talking about a person who decides that lying, wasting resources, and allowing false hope is acceptable because the alternative feels worse.

That’s the part I can’t get past.

So I’m genuinely asking others here, not for theories about who, and not for timelines or mechanics.

What kind of persn does this?
And what could they believe they were responsible for that justifies all of it?

Because whatever that answer is, it explains far more than the wandered off story ever did.

You can’t get there because you’re assuming the person who knows the truth has the same emotional make up as you and the same conscience.
Some people can put others through hell just to avoid an inconvenience to themselves.

 

[Athena Holmes]

I’ve posted plenty about why I never believed the wandered off theory, so I won’t rehash all of that again. It always felt wrong to me, and I’ve said that consistently from the start. What we’re seeing now doesn’t surprise me, even if it’s grim.

What I keep trying to do is put myself in the position of the person who knows the truth.

And I can’t get there.

I can imagine panic. I can imagine an accident or negligence. I can imagine that first moment where you realise something has gone terribly wrong and your brain is racing. But I keep hitting the same wall.

What could I have done that would make deceiving everyone feel like the better option?

Because this isn’t passive. This isn’t freezing up. This is an active choice made over and over again. Letting a massive search run. Letting people hope. Letting police, volunteers, neighbours waste time and energy while you know the truth. That’s not a single bad decision. That’s sustained behaviour.

So what does the truth look like in your mind if this feels preferable?

If it was an accident or negligence, owning up is horrific but it’s finite. Charges. Consequences. Public shame. But a cover up like this suggests something more. Something that makes the original truth feel completely unlivable. Something that turns this was a terrible accident into everything ends if this comes out.

Intoxication. Prior incidents. Serious negligence. Risk of other children being taken. Something about the circumstances that makes the truth indefensible even to yourself.

I’m not talking about cartoon evil. I’m talking about a person who decides that lying, wasting resources, and allowing false hope is acceptable because the alternative feels worse.

That’s the part I can’t get past.

So I’m genuinely asking others here, not for theories about who, and not for timelines or mechanics.

What kind of persn does this?
And what could they believe they were responsible for that justifies all of it?

Because whatever that answer is, it explains far more than the wandered off story ever did.

I would suggest that the kind of person who does this is likely to be covering up something very bad. Some possible scenarios. Covering up child abuse, this could be child sexual abuse (with other family members unaware). Covering up a violent act/s, that resulted either accidentally or intentionally in a child's death.

 

[BreakingNews]

Unless the little boy had met his fate the night before. And was hidden or disposed of before sunrise. And that morning Jess thought he was still asleep when she left very early that morning, to go mend fences.


There is always going to be inconsistencies during a cover up. imo

Judge Judy says you need a good memory to tell lies. Tell the truth and it doesn't change

 

[Detechtive]

Yes I'd agree, not usual even on a rural property where guns are used more frequently for pest etc control.

I knew a family on a remote property where the owner shot a snake in the pool. Everyone thought it was off the charts crazy and it was the talk of the town for a long time.

Having grown up on a rural property with many deadly snakes, even though there were guns at our property, the last thing you would grab to kill a snake is a gun. It’s insane. A shovel would be your go to.

As for trespassers, nobody ever ever did that in the country.

The defensiveness of JM regardless of whether the DM reporter was intrusive, is insane IMO

Edit: they attempted to kill a snake in the pool but it wasn’t a success, of course. They just shot up the pool because shooting a snake is nigh on impossible with a shot gun. The snake theory is BS, IMO.

 

[SouthAussie]

The defensiveness of JM regardless of whether the DM reporter was intrusive, is insane IMO

No its not. The DM did wrong to start with. I agree that Josie was seen to be threatening. But that does not excuse the DM provoking the situation by knowingly trespassing in the first place.
Then they had the nerve to publish and cry about it.

If they hadn't trespassed, it never would have happened.

Their crime does not excuse Josie's actions, but theirs was the blatant infringement. Trespass can be a criminal offense in SA.

imo

 

[jepop]

I have the impression that the police are looking at Shannon. Just my own impression from what I have read. We know absolutely nothing about her personality traits because she has kept a very low profile.

I feel that people have super-imposed their own feelings onto her, when we actually know nothing at all about her personality.

imo

I'm leaning that way too as regards who the police think is responsible. But what I'm wondering about atm (like many others no doubt!) is who the current suspect is. From what I read from some here, it seems police have to alert or tell a suspect of their status for legal reasons ( not sure just going on a couple of posts I saw) so I wonder about police strategy. If JM is the suspect referred to in the presser then perhaps they are suspected of concealment. And police have strategised this as a way to put pressure on SM. Speculation, jmo.

I agree that in reality we know nothing at all really about SM's personality and it's easy to unconsciously project our own feelings onto others. Maybe JM is fiercely protective of SM. Maybe SM even rules the roost. Just some rambling thoughts.

I rewatched the presser yesterday, including question time, and at about 32:36 detective is asked

"Does the time line from when he was last seen still stand?"

He replies "We are still working on that time line, yes".

This does make me wonder further if SM may be the person ultimately suspected of being responsible for Gus' death; in that police believe Gus disappeared under SM's watch.

I keep coming back to JL being cleared, and believe it's unlikely her statements were inconsistent; meaning that her and JM were not at the homestead when police believe Gus disappeared. To make that feasible moo police would need to have established JL saw Gus that day/morning Imo and that JL and JM did leave the homestead and travel to x location for station work.

As some have pointed out, police stated there were several inconsistencies. Could it be that some SM /JM statements are inconsistent with statements of neighbours or other people nearby (workers) not just with JL?

Inconsistencies could be related to the timeline beyond the day Gus went missing; perhaps the whereabouts of SM in evening prior to the arrival of police, or the whereabouts of one or other of the grandparents the following day if either left the homestead. All this is just speculation and theorising.

ETA link

 

[Detechtive]

No its not. The DM did wrong to start with. I agree that Josie was seen to be threatening. But that does not excuse the DM provoking the situation by knowingly trespassing in the first place.
Then they had the nerve to publish and cry about it.

If they hadn't trespassed, it never would have happened.

Their crime does not excuse Josie's actions, but theirs was the blatant infringement. Trespass can be a criminal offense in SA.

imo

I disagree. Pulling a gun out to confront anybody in this country is insanity. It might be more normal in the rural US, but here, that behaviour is unhinged IMO.

I have known a lot of people on rural properties the size of this one, and as remote - and that behaviour is not normal in the rural farming culture. It’s more typical of Soviet citizen lunatics.

I agree the DM was out of line in this case, but I still think the reaction was extreme. IMO

 

[Total_C]

No.

First, they weren’t trespassing in the way you’re implying. They were told to leave and they were leaving. That’s the opposite of some “we forced our way in” story.

Second, even if you want to play lawyer with the technicalities, it changes nothing. You don’t respond by coming out brandishing a firearm with shells in your other hand. That is intimidation. It is illegal here. It is not “understandable,” it is a deliberate escalation.

And your “if they hadn’t been there it wouldn’t have happened” line is garbage logic. That’s how people excuse intimidation and violence in every context. Shift blame onto the person in front of you, pretend the escalation was inevitable, and act like the person holding the weapon had no agency. That’s not a standard, it’s an excuse.

 

[SouthAussie]

I disagree. Pulling a gun out to confront anybody in this country is insanity. It might be more normal in the rural US, but here, that behaviour is unhinged IMO.

I have known a lot of people on rural properties the size of this one, and as remote - and that behaviour is not normal in the rural farming culture. It’s more typical of Soviet citizen lunatics.

I agree the DM was out of line in this case, but I still think the reaction was extreme. IMO

No worries, we can agree to disagree. Just wish you wouldn't say extreme things like The defensiveness of JM regardless of whether the DM reporter was intrusive, is insane IMO.

I don't think an alternate opinion of others is insane. We all look at things from our own perspective. As you know, I lived in the SA outback for many years and my perspective is different from yours.

Josie should not have had the gun there, could have placed it down.
But even if they had yelled at the reporters, the DM would have blown it up. "We innocently trespassed to ask questions, and they YELLED at us". Photos included.

The police chose to 'believe' Josie's statement, even if they didn't really believe it.

imo

 

[jepop]

It has probably been on the mind of most people here, as one of the considerations of what happened to Gus. But speculation and accusations can't fly when there is no suspect or POI (WS rules).

So people look at the alternatives, try to count them out first. We can discuss those things without a POI or suspect.

It is the nice thing about WS - case discussion without conspiracy theories and rampant accusations.

I am still not convinced that Gus couldn't be lost by himself, BUT I think that the police must have some hard evidence (and/or witness statements) to have declared this a major crime.

imo

Agreed with all this. An investigation is dynamic and we knew from the start that investigators were considering all angles concurrently from the start. Police updated regularly and up until this year their statements included a consistent phrase 'no indicators/evidence of foul play'. Moo those statements were not lies at the time and WS TsOS protect victims. We don't have crystal balls. Dynamic investigation. Jmo

 

[Total_C]

No worries, we can agree to disagree. Just wish you wouldn't say extreme things like The defensiveness of JM regardless of whether the DM reporter was intrusive, is insane IMO.

I don't think an alternate opinion of others is insane. We all look at things from our own perspective. As you know, I lived in the SA outback for many years and my perspective is different from yours.

Josie should not have had the gun there, could have placed it down.
But even if they had yelled at the reporters, the DM would have blown it up. "We innocently trespassed to ask questions, and they YELLED at us". Photos included.

The police chose to 'believe' Josie's statement, even if they didn't really believe it.

imo

The eye roll emoji is exactly the problem.

This isn’t a taste issue. This isn’t “different perspectives.” This is firearm conduct in Australia, and treating it like a joke is reckless.

I know plenty of licensed gun owners. Mining overlaps with farming, so I’m around this all the time. People who actually live under the licensing system did not watch that and shrug. The reaction is usually “WTF” because they understand what the standards are here and how quickly your licence disappears if you play games.

Gun laws in this country are very strict. Licences require a prescribed purpose. Storage and handling rules are enforced. Police can and do audit people. And no, “shooing off annoying reporters” is not a lawful or prescribed reason to be brandishing a firearm and shells. Call it what it is, intimidation.

So no, I’m not going to pretend this is just an “alternate opinion.” When you normalise weapon misuse as “defensiveness” you lower the bar for everyone. It is irresponsible, and it’s exactly why lawful gun owners get furious at this stuff.

You can hate the Daily Mail without excusing conduct that would get most people in serious trouble here.

imo

 

[SouthAussie]

The eye roll emoji is exactly the problem.

This isn’t a taste issue. This isn’t “different perspectives.” This is firearm conduct in Australia, and treating it like a joke is reckless.

I know plenty of licensed gun owners. Mining overlaps with farming, so I’m around this all the time. People who actually live under the licensing system did not watch that and shrug. The reaction is usually “WTF” because they understand what the standards are here and how quickly your licence disappears if you play games.

Gun laws in this country are very strict. Licences require a prescribed purpose. Storage and handling rules are enforced. Police can and do audit people. And no, “shooing off annoying reporters” is not a lawful or prescribed reason to be brandishing a firearm and shells. Call it what it is, intimidation.

So no, I’m not going to pretend this is just an “alternate opinion.” When you normalise weapon misuse as “defensiveness” you lower the bar for everyone. It is irresponsible, and it’s exactly why lawful gun owners get furious at this stuff.

You can hate the Daily Mail without excusing conduct that would get most people in serious trouble here.

imo

Thank you for adding imo to this post.

 

[Kemug]

I wonder if the future of the property played a part in any of this. I believe Shannon inherited it from her mother? There seems to have been a lack of male heirs until Gus and Ronnie were born. You would think they would be treated as extremely precious. I'm tired and I don't really know where I'm going with this, so good night all, see you tomorrow.

 

[BreakingNews]

I believe the task force are not in a great hurry but quietly confident they will have evidence to charge someone soon.

I understand they still have to await results and analysis of forensic testing on the seized vehicle, motorbike and electronic devices.

Also probably monitoring what comes out in the wash after the press conference.

I'm wondering about the reason for the presser yesterday. Why say we have a suspect, but don't lay charges (yet). If they are both at Oak Park, you wouldn't know what could happen.

 

[Total_C]

Thank you for adding imo to this post.

From : Firearms Act 2015

"15—Grant of licences(1) The Registrar may only refuse an application for a firearms licence if the Registrar isnot satisfied—"
(b) that the applicant is a fit and proper person to hold the licence; or"

"7—Fit and proper person"

"(4) In deciding whether a person is a fit and proper person for a purpose under this Act—
(a) regard may be had to the reputation, honesty and integrity of the person, closeassociates of the person and any people with whom the person associates; and
(b) regard must be had to—
(i) any risk of the person using a firearm for an unlawful purpose; or
(ii) any risk of the person using a firearm to harm himself or herself; or
(iii) any risk that the person will cause injury or harm to another by the use or threatened use of a firearm; or
(iv) any risk of the person failing to exercise continuous and responsible control over a firearm,and, in that connection, regard may be had to the person's past behaviour,instability, intemperate habits, way of living or domestic circumstances."

 

[jepop]

Am I remembering correctly that the presser yesterday mentioned the police had received 2 letters with information?

I relistened recently and yes. But moo the letters are mentioned during the section where the general number of tips and the form they arrived in was being laid out by police. Nothing further was said about them or any of the other tips. So moo this was just part of delineating the work undertaken during the investigation.