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

[Bats]

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

Yes agreed. Its most likely the person stopped cooperating after being formally cautioned that they are a suspect and quite fair that they procure a lawyer.
Yes, for sure. They're in trouble.

Reading between the lines, it sounds like investigators are alluding that Gus was removed from the vicinity at some point. I wonder if they have some sort of evidence to that effect?

 

[kiwi50]

isn’t it more likely that the suspect is the one who hired a defence lawyer, than the one who hired a criminal lawyer?
SM looked very fragile and upset when they were photographed out shopping, JM much less so.
I think JM rules that station with an iron fist,

 

[ThisOne01]

IMO all that we have known before the presser is mostly fabricated - pertaining to timelines, alibis and anything that has come from the family.

The facts start at when the police were called at 8pm.

I don’t know if this theory has been brought up but what if Gus was riding on the back of the motorbike and fell off. I still don’t feel strongly about it.

With such a remote, private family where we don’t know much about them or their dynamic, none of the other theories have resonated either.

Do we have a timeline of police activity/searches reported and what was performed at each?

SAPOL have undoubtedly done some amazing work on this case to date given they’re looking for a needle in a haystack.

 

[jepop]

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'm likewise not inclined to rehash this. I just want to note the context around when this happened.

1) the was no evidence of foul play, family cooperating. Family considered victims on WS.
2) SAPOL had clearly communicated to the public that the request of the entire family was could the media give them space to grieve and process in private ( don't be unnecessarily invasive)
3) Every media outlet respected that request except the DM who went onto the property, passed a no trespassing sign and continued in to the homestead unsolicited.

Imo, given that context the DM had no business to be there, 'technically' trespassing or not.

IIRC This all happened a day or so prior to SAPOL dam drain near the actual homestead. Moo

ETA Thank you for providing some at the time context for the OP you are responding to.

 

[SouthAussie]

isn’t it more likely that the suspect is the one who hired a defence lawyer, than the one who hired a criminal lawyer?

Andrew Ey and Casey Isaacs are both criminal defence lawyers.


Casey Isaacs is a highly respected criminal defence lawyer with more than two decades’ experience practising exclusively in criminal law. He is recognised in Doyle’s Guide as a Leading South Australian Criminal Defence Lawyer, a distinction awarded based on peer review by fellow criminal lawyers and barristers for demonstrated expertise, ability and standing in the profession.


... our newly appointed partner Andrew Ey has been named as a recommended leading solicitor in criminal defence (in the Doyles Guide).

Casey Isaacs | Partner | Criminal Defence Lawyer in Adelaide

Casey provides clear, concise advice irrespective of how simple or complex your criminal charges are.

www.caldicottlawyers.com.au

https://manganey.com.au/first-tier-leading-criminal-defence-law-firm-adelaide/

 

[Bats]

I'm likewise not inclined to rehash this. I just want to note the context around when this happened.

1) the was no evidence of foul play, family cooperating. Family considered victims on WS.
2) SAPOL had clearly communicated to the public that the request of the entire family was could the media give them space to grieve and process in private ( don't be unnecessarily invasive)
3) Every media outlet respected that request except the DM who went onto the property, passed a no trespassing sign and continued in to the homestead unsolicited.

Imo, given that context the DM had no business to be there, 'technically' trespassing or not.

IIRC This all happened a day or so prior to SAPOL dam drain near the actual homestead. Moo

...and then published an article showing video and photos of themselves actively trespassing and containing subject matter that has nothing to do with the disappearance of Gus and everything to do with spreading conspiracies and by golly gosh...mission accomplished.

 

[Dotta]

Isn't it strange
that Police were called so late, when night already fell?
Then were directed to the vast outback with the story of "wandering off"?
So much time passed with fruitless searches.
Didn't the native tracker say the boy never put his foot out there?

4 months have passed.
And only now a car, a bike, phones, computers were taken for analysis.

Clearly cleaned of alleged evidence.
The alleged perp/s had much time to clear everything, no?

Although,
some say one can never get rid of evidence completely.
And deleted data can be retrieved.

Let's see what twists the future brings in this case.

JMO

 

[Total_C]

Andrew Ey and Casey Isaacs are both criminal defence lawyers.


Casey Isaacs is a highly respected criminal defence lawyer with more than two decades’ experience practising exclusively in criminal law. He is recognised in Doyle’s Guide as a Leading South Australian Criminal Defence Lawyer, a distinction awarded based on peer review by fellow criminal lawyers and barristers for demonstrated expertise, ability and standing in the profession.


... our newly appointed partner Andrew Ey has been named as a recommended leading solicitor in criminal defence (in the Doyles Guide).

Casey Isaacs | Partner | Criminal Defence Lawyer in Adelaide

Casey provides clear, concise advice irrespective of how simple or complex your criminal charges are.

www.caldicottlawyers.com.au

https://manganey.com.au/first-tier-leading-criminal-defence-law-firm-adelaide/

From : Summary Offences Act 1953

I’m not a lawyer, but I actually went and read the SA Act people keep waving around, and here’s my take.

In South Australia the “trespassers on premises” offence people are hinting at is in the Summary Offences Act s 17A. The mechanism is basically this: someone trespasses in a way that interferes with the occupier, an authorised person asks them to leave, and then the person either refuses to leave forthwith or comes back again within 24 hours.

Now look at what we can actually see in the video. The reporter is told to leave, and she leaves. Immediately. That is literally the opposite of what s 17A is trying to punish. You don’t get to call it “trespass” as a gotcha when the moment the occupier withdraws consent the person complies.

The sign point is the same story. A sign can revoke implied permission in some circumstances, sure, but it doesn’t magically turn “walk up, ask for comment, leave when told” into a criminal offence. Where was the sign. Was there a closed gate. Was it obvious before entry. Was the normal access to the front door blocked. None of that is being shown here, it’s just assumed.

And the “SAPOL told the media to stay away” line keeps getting repeated like it’s proven fact. How do you know every outlet got that notice. You don’t. And even if police said it publicly, that still isn’t the same thing as the occupier personally asking someone to leave under s 17A unless you can show police were acting with the occupier’s authority.

Also, public interest matters in plain English terms. A missing child, family on a remote property, a journalist seeking comment, that’s exactly the kind of scenario where “approach the front door and ask” is normal conduct. You can hate the Daily Mail all you want, but wanting comment on that situation is not some random nuisance visit.

What’s wild to me is watching people bend over backwards on a shaky “trespass” claim to justify someone coming out with a gun. That’s not normal, and it’s not responsible. I’m glad we have strict gun laws in Australia, because some people clearly think a firearm is a reasonable response to the slightest inconvenience, and that mindset is exactly why the laws exist.

<modsnip: personalizing>

 

[RedHaus]

Anyone have read access to this article?

The title implies it provides history about Josie Murray that I seek to confirm.

At the least, the title implies Josie [replace that with Vincent Pfieffer] has military history...

"A patriarch scarred by horrors of war, and two very unusual marriages: We reveal the deeply complicated world of Gus Lamont's Outback family"

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

ETA: It was Shannon's dad with military history, not Josie. Credit @SouthAussie.

 

[SouthAussie]

Anyone have read access to this article?

The title implies it provides history about Josie Murray that I seek to confirm. At the least, the title implies she has military history... so for now that can replace my statement above about her gun prowess

"A patriarch scarred by horrors of war, and two very unusual marriages: We reveal the deeply complicated world of Gus Lamont's Outback family"

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

The article speaks of Shannon's dad, Vincent Pfeiffer, as a patriarch scarred by horrors of war. Not Josie.

Vincent was a Lance Corporal who became a prisoner of war in 1942/1943.
He was one of a handful of people who survived the atomic bomb in Nagasaki (as a POW) after first being imprisoned in Changi where POWs were made to work on the construction of the Burma Railway - also known as the Death Railway due to the perilous conditions for the workers.

 

[Greenestdays]

What’s wild to me is watching people bend over backwards on a shaky “trespass” claim to justify someone coming out with a gun. That’s not normal, and it’s not responsible. I’m glad we have strict gun laws in Australia, because some people clearly think a firearm is a reasonable response to the slightest inconvenience, and that mindset is exactly why the laws exist.

What’s wild to me is people ignoring that trespassing is not okay. Especially if it’s gutter press like the DM. It’s not like J stepped out with the gun drawn and pointed at the “journalists”. She was simply holding it.

One of my neighbours liked to test out his 4wd in the stream bordering my property and they’d often get stuck and winch off of trees on my property, damaging the trees (plus the stream banks). I usually just found tracks and cursed under my breath but one time I was chopping firewood and heard him struggling and immediately went over to ask him to stop using my property. We had a very civil discussion and he never trespassed again.
But the entire time we were talking I had an axe in my hand, which I didn’t even realise at the time, because it didn’t register in my head as a threat or anything. I had been using it and forgot to drop it as I walked over to the stream. I had no ill intentions approaching him, I just wanted to ask him nicely to stop using my property. I have no idea how he saw the interaction, maybe in his mind a crazy lady wielding an axe demanded that he never stop foot there ever again. It’s all a matter of perspective and to me, the perspective of a sensationalist journo is not believable.

 

[Bats]

Isn't it strange
that Police were called so late, when night already fell?
Then were directed to the vast outback with the story of "wandering off"?
So much time passed with fruitless searches.
Didn't the native tracker say the boy never put his foot out there?

4 months have passed.
And only now a car, a bike, phones, computers were taken for analysis.

Clearly cleaned of alleged evidence.
The alleged perp/s had much time to clear everything, no?

Although,
some say one can never get rid of evidence completely.
And deleted data can be retrieved.

Let's see what twists the future brings in this case.

JMO

To me, it doesn't sound like taking electronic devices, car and bike were an afterthought.

It's possible the courts delayed the warrant for some reason. Also possible they had other means to gather evidence. Perhaps phone taps etc that don't require taking physical possession.

Yes, I remember the tracker saying that. Also the neighbour said that too.

 

[SouthAussie]

Interestingly, the tracker - Ronald Boland - is named by The Advertiser as one of 11 key people in this case.

It is hard to tell if they are getting some inside information, or if they are going off their own thoughts. But I think their police-media connections would be fairly strong - as they are local and frequently cover South Australian cases.

https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/whos-who-in-the-search-and-investigation-11-key-people-in-gus-lamont-case/news-story/26fa48e1bc23d5624b09ab90a396c805?amp

 

[statt#1]

The following is my opinion.

The bottom line for me at this point is that either one, or both Grammys lied about what happened to their grandson Gus. That in and of itself is all I need to know the depth of evil that exists in this case.

Either we have an accidental death, an unintentional death of some persuasion, or a murder to some degree.

Anything related to the so called "timeline" established as a result of the original statement coming from the Granny's is called in to question and very well may be outright lies.

We have cold, calculating, manipulative, deceptive, and possibly murdering people involved here. Frankly, it's repulsive beyond belief. Arrogance. Deceit. Intimidation. Bullying. Rage.

I've seen it all.

 

[washysmum]

What’s wild to me is people ignoring that trespassing is not okay. Especially if it’s gutter press like the DM. It’s not like J stepped out with the gun drawn and pointed at the “journalists”. She was simply holding it.

One of my neighbours liked to test out his 4wd in the stream bordering my property and they’d often get stuck and winch off of trees on my property, damaging the trees (plus the stream banks). I usually just found tracks and cursed under my breath but one time I was chopping firewood and heard him struggling and immediately went over to ask him to stop using my property. We had a very civil discussion and he never trespassed again.
But the entire time we were talking I had an axe in my hand, which I didn’t even realise at the time, because it didn’t register in my head as a threat or anything. I had been using it and forgot to drop it as I walked over to the stream. I had no ill intentions approaching him, I just wanted to ask him nicely to stop using my property. I have no idea how he saw the interaction, maybe in his mind a crazy lady wielding an axe demanded that he never stop foot there ever again. It’s all a matter of perspective and to me, the perspective of a sensationalist journo is not believable.

I will admit to treating trespassers the same way previously, not justifying it, but you feel pretty confident that someone will leave when in that situation.

 

[shiningonsmiles]

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

The forensics taking time could be a reason to delay arrest but then why the presser? Unless it's to put pressure on them to confess instead.

If one grandma was responsible for the death, and the other helped cover it up. Then perhaps the aim was to create a divide between the two, in the hopes one would talk? But that would mean one suspect (of original crime) and one suspect of cover up. In that case would the police have specified two suspects..

ImO

 

[jepop]

bbm

an indeed i don't see how they could ever reach that degree of certainty, unless, e.g., they had continuous video of the whole day that never shows him leaving the house.

For sure. I suppose one point is that they won't rule it out 100% publicly. It might just be a small, self covering nod to keeping options open 'just in case' at this time. I don't believe they have enough for an arrest at present. That might change very soon though, maybe after the latest forensic analysis of the vehicle, motor bike and electronic devices. Jmo

 

[Toowong(s)]

The forensics taking time could be a reason to delay arrest but then why the presser? Unless it's to put pressure on them to confess instead.

If one grandma was responsible for the death, and the other helped cover it up. Then perhaps the aim was to create a divide between the two, in the hopes one would talk? But that would mean one suspect (of original crime) and one suspect of cover up. In that case would the police have specified two suspects..

ImO

IMO primary reason for presser:-
- having executed search warrants, seized evidence, ordered forensic anaylsis, informed SM or JM that they are a suspect, resulting in both of them engaging lawyers in response, it is then only a matter of time before something is leaked to the press and all hell breaks loose especially at the Daily Mail.
- presser and all the background info ensures SAPOL control the messaging before anything leaks out to press through other sources.

Secondary reasons
- I’m sure SAPOL are under extreme pressure to show results after all the resources and expenses thrown at this.
- put pressure on suspect and witnesses and perhaps also flush out any more new info from witnesses that were giving family members the “benefit of the doubt”.

Also I’m not sure the motor bike shown at the presser was the one siezed. The AI data analysis only revealed one human, compared to showing thousands of animals, and then they zeroed in on that one human who happens to be on a motorbike to simply show how clever the AI analysis is. It may have been a family member working on the day or some other worker in the area / neighbouring property? I don’t think there much relevance of the photographed motor bike to the seized motor bike but it may indeed be the same one…

IMO only

 

[jepop]

IMO primary reason for presser:-
- having executed search warrants, seized evidence, ordered forensic anaylsis, informed SM or JM that they are a suspect, resulting in both of them engaging lawyers in response, it is then only a matter of time before something is leaked to the press and all hell breaks loose especially at the Daily Mail.
- presser and all the background info ensures SAPOL control the messaging before anything leaks out to press through other sources.

Secondary reasons
- I’m sure SAPOL are under extreme pressure to show results after all the resources and expenses thrown at this.
- put pressure on suspect and witnesses and perhaps also flush out any more new info from witnesses that were giving family members the “benefit of the doubt”.

Also I’m not sure the motor bike shown at the presser was the one siezed. The AI data analysis only revealed one human alongside thousands of animals, and then they zeroed in on that one human who happens to be on a motorbike to simply show how clever the AI analysis is. It may have been a family member working on the day or some other worker in the area / neighbouring property? I don’t think there much relevance to the seized motor bike but it may indeed be the same one…

IMO only

I like this analysis. It makes a lot of sense to me.

 

[jepop]

IMO primary reason for presser:-
- having executed search warrants, seized evidence, ordered forensic anaylsis, informed SM or JM that they are a suspect, resulting in both of them engaging lawyers in response, it is then only a matter of time before something is leaked to the press and all hell breaks loose especially at the Daily Mail.
- presser and all the background info ensures SAPOL control the messaging before anything leaks out to press through other sources.
(Snipped for focus)

RBBM and snipped. Also I forgot, under Aust law, Sub judice would immediately apply after an arrest IMO. Police want to do this by the book and not jeopardise any potential prosecution down the line.

Reporting on the Courts

Reporting on court trials, processes and proceedings requires a degree of specialist knowledge and understanding. We only have to look at the continued fallout from the recent George Pell trial in the Victorian Supreme Court, and the choice several publications made to breach suppression orders...

junctionjournalism.com

"Essentials to be aware of

• Sub Judice: (meaning under-justice). The period that begins when a person is either arrested, has charges laid against them, or is issued with a warrant, and ends when the case has finished in courts. During the sub judice period, limitations apply to what can be published about the case."