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

[SouthAussie]

JMO but it's not trespassing to walk up to someone's front door with the intention of speaking to them. If asked to leave, you leave. If you don't leave, that's trespassing. If you cap out in someone's yard, even to get s scoop, that's trespassing. IMO this wasn't that.

She didn't know they would say no. In fact, maybe she thought they would welcome an opportunity to tell their side of the story. Report on the human side of things.

A No Trespassing/No Media might have been a better sign --

I can't speak for the journalist in question but 1. that is how journalists score an interview and 2. she couldn't possibly have predicted that she'd met with that particular display.

In light of the newest information from the presser, that aggressive stance looks even worse.

Some of us -- that journalist included IMO -- genuinely wanted Gus found. Seems some people (one or two, depending on how that dynamic played out) did not.

And at this point, if Gus died accidentally and panic led to concealment, why not come clean now, lead LE to his body, and beg for mercy? Unless.... it wasn't accidental.

JMO

Sorry to return to this contentious subject (might be my last post on the subject for a while), but I think you will find that this was trespassing. There was a No Trespassing sign (I have posted the image a couple of times). Plus the police had asked/told the media to stay away. That changes things.

The following article is about a South Australian case. Someone was awarded a civil monetary award ($40,000) by the courts because the police served him a summons at his home when he had a No Trespassing sign up.


.... officers should be aware that occupiers of premises can revoke the common law implied licence to enter their premises either by having a visible sign at the premises, by verbal revocation or by physical barrier (e.g. closed gates).

In such circumstances, absent any statutory authority or warrant to enter the premises, entry may be unauthorised and could amount to trespass and an adverse award of damages.

Knock, Knock, Who’s Trespassing? When is Your Implied Licence to Enter Land Revoked? • Norman Waterhouse

That sign indicated that entry to his premises was forbidden, except by express invitation, and revoked the implied licence for police to enter his premises without lawful authority. An implied licence is a common law legal concept that allows anyone, including police officers or other authorities,…

www.normans.com.au

 

[Andreee]

Exactly this

Great post but I can’t help but think it was caused by rage

I do have to wonder, if this was an accident, why cover it up?! We have seen this in other cases, and IMO there has to be a very good reason to do so in order to make the coverup worth it. It is usually not a good enough reason, and ends up badly anyways with the truth eventually coming out.

 

[BreakingNews]

Thanks @SouthAussie

To me, it seems they are a long way off, based on what the investigator said in the presser but at the same time, I can't imagine why they'd do the presser without them being certain. I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

@Old Soul yes agreed. They can take their time here. Perhaps they are expecting those forensic results to only add strength to the evidence they already have?

Bats, I don't understand the timing of the presser either. It has to be strategic somehow. No one really knows the current living arrangements of any of them. We are all assuming, but no one knows for sure.

 

[BreakingNews]

Just to add ... if they were mostly living in Adelaide, that could have meant a 3½ hour drive to Yunta - when Jess needed to work there.

If they were all planning to move to Belalie North, once the house was fixed up enough, they would only have been about 1 & 1/4 hours from Yunta.

Huge difference in travel for a commuter relationship. Probably adding even more normalcy for their family - especially as Gus was meant to start pre-school. Less time away from Josh for them all.

imo

And at the Belalie property, still needing a lot of renos, there were toys around the yard. Moreso than at Oak Park. The old trampoline could have been Jess's from when she was young.

 

[BreakingNews]

What is the benefit of LE stating they have a POI/suspect without an impending arrest? This happened in the Asha Degree case where LE stated publicly that there was a prime suspect yet no arrests ever came of it.
Is it to draw out other tips?

I don't get it either. It's a bit like LE stating at the Coronial hearing into William Tyrrell disappearance, that the ex foster mother was a suspect. Then nothing more came of it. However I guess LE have their tragic reasons in the hope to find Gus.

 

[Bigditch]

Sorry to return to this contentious subject (might be my last post on the subject for a while), but I think you will find that this was trespassing. There was a No Trespassing sign (I have posted the image a couple of times). Plus the police had asked/told the media to stay away. That changes things.

The following article is about a South Australian case. Someone was awarded a civil monetary award ($40,000) by the courts because the police served him a summons at his home when he had a No Trespassing sign up.


.... officers should be aware that occupiers of premises can revoke the common law implied licence to enter their premises either by having a visible sign at the premises, by verbal revocation or by physical barrier (e.g. closed gates).

In such circumstances, absent any statutory authority or warrant to enter the premises, entry may be unauthorised and could amount to trespass and an adverse award of damages.

Knock, Knock, Who’s Trespassing? When is Your Implied Licence to Enter Land Revoked? • Norman Waterhouse

That sign indicated that entry to his premises was forbidden, except by express invitation, and revoked the implied licence for police to enter his premises without lawful authority. An implied licence is a common law legal concept that allows anyone, including police officers or other authorities,…

www.normans.com.au

I have never had a problem decoding what No Tresspassing means.

 

[Old Soul]

Yup, me too...

I quickly dismissed the idea that perhaps a snake was near Gus while he was playing outside and someone had a bad aim.

And that could have been SM who tried to take out the snake, as we can presume JM has pretty good aim as a former LE officer.

All speculation... but that sure might spur a cover up to protect that someone from manslaughter charges and loss of gun rights?

BBM
I have never seen any reference to JM being a former LE officer, do you have a source for that?

 

[washysmum]

Do you discount the possibility of him wandering away and becoming lost?

(Of course now with LE's latest announcement it does seem unlikely. But did you discount it from the start?)

I did think he may have wandered off at first, possibly met with an animal, definitely not abducted, but the more info that came out, the longer it went on with no sign,I think it became very obvious foul
play was involved,

 

[Hercule Holmes]

I agree! And that is likely the motorcycle currently being forensically analyzed, IMO.

If LE can get that level of detailed imagery on that particular moment in time, the subliminal message sent to the suspect(s) could be, 'We have this imagery for any day or night we care to analyze.'

Additionally, me thinks motorcycle head lights could be picked up at night by what I presume is sophisticated satellite imagery. A single head light anywhere on the two properties SM and JM care for, around the time Gus was reported missing, could be telling and may lead to Gus.

ETA: clarifying words

Human nature being what it is, I would be extremely surprised if Gus wasn't "removed" from the property before 5pm.

The reason to concoct a story to explain his disappearance, is largely based around providing alibis to the person/s involved. You risk losing control of the situation if you wait until after the "sandpit story" to dispose of the body. I think it is highly unlikely he was driven anywhere after dark.

I do think the motorcycle is relevant in LE eyes and it is no coincidence it has been highlighted in the presser, as well as being seized.

In trying to work out which grandparent is responsible, I find it harder to make a case for Shannon on her own. If Josie and Jess were both 10km away tending to sheep the whole time, then where would the discrepancy in statements come from? Josie and Jess would be able to 100% verify each other's movements. Shannon could basically say anything, because no-one could refute it or provide conflicting details - either at the time, or in subsequent statements down the track. Slight changes in time could easily be put down to stress-related memory issues.

Using that logic, and given Jess has been excluded, that only leaves one person's statement under question. That really has to mean that Josie and Jess weren't together all day. The obvious discrepancy would be based around what time Josie joined Jess, probably using the motorbike.

Something likely happened to Gus after Jess had left. Impossible to know exactly who did what, but very likely both granny's were aware. Story concocted. Probably Josie takes the body somewhere before joining Jess. The likely discrepancy is the missing time between departure from the homestead (Shannon's version) and arrival at the sheep tending (Jess' statement). Over time, at least one granny via subsequent statement/s, has created a situation whereby a 20 minute bike ride appears to have taken significantly longer IMO.

 

[SouthAussie]

BBM
I have never seen any reference to JM being a former LE officer, do you have a source for that?

I have never seen that either.

The DM says that Josie (who was Robert at the time) worked the sheep station with Shannon's father. Those business records extend back to 1999. So, for at least the past 27 years.

It doesn't say what he did prior to that.

Inside the complicated and tragic world of missing Gus Lamont's family

Unearthed documents and local sources have revealed that the family of missing South Australian boy Gus Lamont has a complicated - and tragic - history.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[Bats]

Bats, I don't understand the timing of the presser either. It has to be strategic somehow. No one really knows the current living arrangements of any of them. We are all assuming, but no one knows for sure.

Hey BN. It has me wondering too.

The way I see it is that the presser's objective was to announce that SAPOL has a suspect. Being made a 'suspect' is a formal designation (I think someone in this thread has mentioned this but I can't remember where). It is a shift from informal questioning to a formal investigation process, hence, suspects requiring lawyers etc.

So since being made a suspect is a formal designation, it would be SAPOL's duty to inform the public and given the high profile nature of this missing person case.

Which begs the question, why did they make someone a formal suspect? Being made a formal suspect usually precedes formal questioning...or an arrest with charges being layed.

I believe SAPOL must have enough evidence to charge. I guess there is a strategy in delaying this. It may be that they are waiting on results from forensic testing.

IMO, simply having someone stop co-operating is not the reason for being made a formal suspect. If that person suddenly decided to start co-operating again would they no longer be a suspect? I think not.

All my opinion

 

[SouthAussie]

In trying to work out which grandparent is responsible, I find it harder to make a case for Shannon on her own.

If Shannon had been caring for the children all afternoon/all day, it is possible that her timings were way off. '5pm last saw Gus. Wasn't there at 5:30pm.' That may be the inconsistencies. Perhaps her story was changing.

I sometimes wonder if she was hiding behind Josie. Josie never seemed shy about being seen. Shannon, not so much.

Having both retained high-flyer lawyers, they are both definitely trying to ward off some potential big trouble.

imo

 

[SouthAussie]

Hey BN. It has me wondering too.

The way I see it is that the presser's objective was to announce that SAPOL has a suspect. Being made a 'suspect' is a formal designation (I think someone in this thread has mentioned this but I can't remember where). It is a shift from informal questioning to a formal investigation process, hence, suspects requiring lawyers etc.

So since being made a suspect is a formal designation, it would be SAPOL's duty to inform the public.

Which begs the question, why did they make someone a formal suspect? Being made a formal suspect usually precedes formal questioning...or an arrest with charges being layed.

I believe SAPOL must have enough evidence to charge. I guess there is a strategy in delaying this. It may be that they are waiting on results from forensic testing.

IMO, simply having someone stop co- operating is not the reason for being made a suspect. If that person suddenly decided to start co-operating again would they no longer be a suspect? I think not.

All my opinion

I also read this morning that the police would have informed the suspect that they were now, in fact, a suspect. Presumably this happened before the presser.

Will look for that link again and post it if I find it.

imo

 

[Bigditch]

I have never seen that either.

The DM says that Josie (who was Robert at the time) worked the sheep station with Shannon's father. Those business records extend back to 1999. So, for at least the past 27 years.

It doesn't say what he did prior to that.

Inside the complicated and tragic world of missing Gus Lamont's family

Unearthed documents and local sources have revealed that the family of missing South Australian boy Gus Lamont has a complicated - and tragic - history.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Would like to read the posted article but it is paywalled.

 

[Hercule Holmes]

If Shannon had been caring for the children all afternoon/all day, it is possible that her timings were way off. '5pm last saw Gus. Wasn't there at 5:30pm.' That may be the inconsistencies. Perhaps her story was changing.

I sometimes wonder if she was hiding behind Josie. Josie never seemed shy about being seen. Shannon, not so much.

Having both retained high-flyer lawyers, they are both definitely trying to ward off some potential big trouble.

imo

But changes like that don't directly clash with what anyone else is saying? It really doesn't change much if he went out to the sandpit at 4:45 or 5:20. He either wandered or he didn't. There is nothing about her timeline on it's own that implies guilt IMO.

 

[Dotta]

Hey BN. It has me wondering too.

The way I see it is that the presser's objective was to announce that SAPOL has a suspect. Being made a 'suspect' is a formal designation (I think someone in this thread has mentioned this but I can't remember where). It is a shift from informal questioning to a formal investigation process, hence, suspects requiring lawyers etc.

So since being made a suspect is a formal designation, it would be SAPOL's duty to inform the public and given the high profile nature of this missing person case.

Which begs the question, why did they make someone a formal suspect? Being made a formal suspect usually precedes formal questioning...or an arrest with charges being layed.

I believe SAPOL must have enough evidence to charge. I guess there is a strategy in delaying this. It may be that they are waiting on results from forensic testing.

IMO, simply having someone stop co-operating is not the reason for being made a formal suspect. If that person suddenly decided to start co-operating again would they no longer be a suspect? I think not.

All my opinion

For me
"not cooperating" means "no comment" while waiting for a lawyer

Which, in fact, is recommended.

But seriously,
being named a suspect means trouble IMO.
It is worse than POI, right?

JMO

 

[SouthAussie]

Here is the link for my previous post about the police informing someone that they are a suspect.


It was Charlie Bezzina that said .... Mr Bezzina said the shift from someone cooperating with police to being described as 'no longer cooperating with us' often happens when investigators formally caution a person as a potential suspect.
'If you have to caution someone when they are talking to police, that will shut them up,' Mr Bezzina said.

'Then it's a matter of them saying, "I don't want you talking to me without my lawyer present," or the lawyer saying, "If you want to talk to my client, it will only be when I am present."'

After the announcement, it was revealed that two members of Gus's family had hired separate lawyers.

'Masterful tactic' deployed in Gus Lamont case

Disputes between missing Gus Lamont's grandparents are said to be cracking wide open after they hired separate lawyers and police close in on their 'main suspect'.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[SouthAussie]

But changes like that don't directly clash with what anyone else is saying? It really doesn't change much if he went out to the sandpit at 4:45 or 5:20. He either wandered or he didn't. There is nothing about her timeline on it's own that implies guilt IMO.

I am not tied to any particular theory. I am just saying that Shannon's timeline may have been deemed to be incorrect somehow. Maybe even purposefully incorrect. IDK

Because we don't know what the inconsistencies are, or what any potential evidence may be.

Whereas I would think that Jess could confirm where she and Josie were, and when. And Jess is deemed (by the police) to not be under suspicion.

From what we know, so far.

imo

 

[Greenestdays]

Please could you help me understand this. Does this mean that police have access to satellite imagery that would show activity, such as a motorbike travelling, prior to the child being reported missing? Or is this afterwards? Thanks.

Those images shown in the presser are not satellite but drone photos. With current technology you cannot take an image that detailed from a satellite. There is absolutely no technology available today that will monitor the entire earth daily with that resolution. Satellites have set trajectories and schedules. And images from lower devices are also taken on a schedule (such as land survey photos, which are done using light aircrafts), or on order, which was done in Gus’ case using drones. I can’t find the articles about the search at a quick glance because google search is flooded with current news, but from my recollection the drone imagery was done some time at the end of last year. Somebody in this thread talked about the capabilities of lidar, because it was either implied or assumed the LE would be using that. I’ll try to find the relevant post and link it when I’ve submitted this one. But I just want to emphasise that the photos shown in the latest presser are most definitely not from a satellite from the day Gus went missing, those are images taken at a later date with a drone.

Edited to add
Post in thread 'AUSTRALIA - 4YO AUGUST (GUS) Missing from rural family home in Outback, Yunta, South Australia, 27th Sept 2025'
Australia - AUSTRALIA - 4YO AUGUST (GUS) Missing from rural family home in Outback, Yunta, South Australia, 27th Sept 2025

Here’s the excellent post about drones and lidar, and it also gives a rough time when the LE were utilising more advanced drones.

 

[RedHaus]

I have never seen any reference to JM being a former LE officer, do you have a source for that?

I have never seen that either.

My bad, again today! Looks like I need to take a sleuthing break. My mind knows this to be fact, but I'm afraid the receipt is from long ago and may not pass the WS TOS. I have asked Mods to remove my statement to that effect, since I can't edit that post any longer. My apologies to our group.

p.s. If I find something WS worthy, I'll post it.