• #4,521
Like I said earlier I think we need to stop talking about the families version of events. There is no credibility that any of it is true.
It's likely Gus died long before the call to police. They would of wanted time to deal with any evidence and make a story up. They could of waited days/weeks/months to call police.

I agree. The police say there are inconsistencies, so we can't 100% rely on anything the family has reported.

Something may have happened to Gus, and Josie may have coerced Shannon to report Gus missing as late as possible so any search would be inconclusive.
Going to look for lost sheep may be to provide a false alibi and remove suspicion from the perpetrator.
 
  • #4,522
Does not necessarily have any bearing on things but in my opinion JM and JL may not actually be married, but it is my opinion they are in a relationship.

In my opinion JL cares for his family (JM and boys) and is most likely not afraid to speak his mind to the grandparents to stand up for himself and his family. This might be where JL and JM senior butt heads on occasion.
 
  • #4,523
Does not necessarily have any bearing on things but in my opinion JM and JL may not actually be married, but it is my opinion they are in a relationship.

In my opinion JL cares for his family (JM and boys) and is most likely not afraid to speak his mind to the grandparents to stand up for himself and his family. This might be where JL and JM senior butt heads on occasion.

Further to this, while JL has had some experience fronting the public in his past (as a musician) I can understand why he might be reluctant to front media in this situation (something that would be completely foreign, unexpected and devastating). It seems like he is somewhat on the outer from the permanent residents of Oak Park (although we dont really know) but perhaps out of respect of his partner JM he is also keeping out of the public attention. If JM is said to be quite shy he might also be following suit as doing something different might seem like he is not supporting his partner.

All IMO
 
  • #4,524
I agree. The police say there are inconsistencies, so we can't 100% rely on anything the family has reported.

Something may have happened to Gus, and Josie may have coerced Shannon to report Gus missing as late as possible so any search would be inconclusive.
Going to look for lost sheep may be to provide a false alibi and remove suspicion from the perpetrator.

I said in the beginning that I didn't understand (and I still don't) why it took so long to notify the police. I think I'm remembering it was about 3 hours? Gus went missing between 5 and 5:30 and the family called police at 8 give or take (could've been a bit earlier and the police arrived close to 8)? I may have the times a bit off since it was so long ago. But we may now have an inkling of why it took so long now that there's a 'suspect'. There's no way I would ever wait that long to report a 4 year old missing regardless of how large the area they were searching. I would want all hands on deck asap. JMO
 
Last edited:
  • #4,525

<modsnip: Quoted post was removed as part of gender discussion which is NOT allowed>

Back to the case, people criticise police for taking so long to declare a major crime investigation, but it seems that all along they have been following up on the possibility that Gus did not just wander off. By focussing on following all three stated lines of investigation, they have perhaps allowed the potential perpetrator(s) to feel a (false?) sense of security and finally slip up with their inconsistencies.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #4,526
ok I must be not understanding what AI is - I didn't think it showed actual real photos - anytime I see an example of AI pics online, it's fake pictures so I don't get the references to AI with a real picture
RSBM
Artificial Intelligence takes many forms in modern first world society. The fake imagery that we see too much of, IMO, is a form of AI that can create or distort images to attain the desired effect. I think of that as an 'artist's' technology tool.

But the form of AI used for real life searches of MPs (great examples in alpine environments recently) is what I believe the SAPOL applied to get the being count data they displayed at the presser.

In this example the Artificial Intelligence analytics has learned (been taught) how to distinguish aerial images of sheep vs. roo vs. cow vs. human, etc. and is thus able to be 'fed' imagery data from planes or drones or satellites to quickly determine what beings are on the ground within a defined area, as in this case. The value of course is speed and accuracy.

Now, the close up images of the sheep and motorcycle rider at the presser are just that. Once the AI analytical output says "there is a human here" then LE can zoom in to see what that human is. The pictures are real, but AI helped find them.

In alpine searches AI analytics have been developed to look for color anomalies in drone or flight images taken. The AI software analyzes images at a pixel level to look for a e.g. yellow hat or red pack. That has proven successful recently.

Anywho, likely more than you asked for. I am NOT an AI expert, but from my data analytics and technology design background I understand it superficially.
 
  • #4,528
ok I must be not understanding what AI is - I didn't think it showed actual real photos - anytime I see an example of AI pics online, it's fake pictures so I don't get the references to AI with a real picture
( Snipped for focus).
Hah...I'm good with generalities not technicalities most of the time and claim no special knowledge of AI. But seems to me artificial intelligence is used as a tool rather than a result in this situ.

As a tech layperson I'm just going on how it was explained in the presser. The way it was explained there Imo is that aerial photographs taken using special camera equipment were analysed and enhanced using AI. Jmo

Police photographically mapped from the air a wide area (up to 15km (?) radius from oak park homestead) over a period of two days (a weekend in mid-Oct, timeline escapes me). The photography from this special camera was sent to a specialist company that uses AI to enhance and analyse the photography (layperson language). The results of that (detailed images, one showing a human on motor bike) were presented to the public at presser. The police referred to this as the results of the widest aerial search conducted. That's all I know! Moo

ETA. Maybe I'll just add that the take away for me is that when detective points to an image and says that is a grey or red kangaroo, that is a person on a motor bike etc I believe him ( I am not questioning the results) and what I am being told is that on the dates the area was mapped using the special camera, those animals and the rider were there. It is a snapshot in time. Moo
 
Last edited:
  • #4,529
ok I must be not understanding what AI is - I didn't think it showed actual real photos - anytime I see an example of AI pics online, it's fake pictures so I don't get the references to AI with a real picture




I don't think Josh would allow his kids and wife to remain at Oak Park if he had any inkling they were being abused in any way, just based on his apparent previous fall out with Josie and his reaction to the annoying media people tracking him down. It seems like he has a temper similar to Josie's IMO.



yes for sure, I was just meaning that a confrontation between Josh and Josie could quickly turn volatile and we already know there's guns on that property unfortunately
the kind that makes - generates - 'fake' photos is generative AI. But that's only one kind of AI. In this case they've used machine learning capabilities where the software/app has learned what is a kangaroo, what is a person, what is a tree, what is a sheep, what is a living creature, what is a deceased creature etc etc so it can count and analyse all that stuff without a human having to do it.
 
  • #4,530
I don't think Josh would allow his kids and wife to remain at Oak Park if he had any inkling they were being abused in any way, just based on his apparent previous fall out with Josie and his reaction to the annoying media people tracking him down. It seems like he has a temper similar to Josie's IMO.
My opinion only, but I'd push back on that slightly, if only because abuse is so frequently a little visible tip of 'problematic' behavior with the rest of the whole massive iceberg out of sight underneath. You wouldn't leave your family in the care of a relative you thought of as abusive or neglectful (as in, the behavior you've witnessed or heard about from them reached a threshold of severity to label it in those terms), but you might still allow them to stay with a relative who is an overbearing, volatile control freak. You might still allow them to stay with a relative who's a bit inappropriate or a bit unsettling in ways you can't quite articulate. You might still allow them to stay with a relative who's a bit too rough or can be a bit mean. You might still allow them to stay with a relative who's a bit absent-minded or careless or has shown poor judgement at times. You might still grudgingly allow them, particularly your adult partner, to stay with a parent despite not liking how that parents speaks to or treats your partner. You might particularly allow it if all you really have are suspicions, misgivings, feelings, nothing more concrete to point to and can be convinced you're making a big deal over a small thing. And you might not know how much things are actually being downplayed or hidden from you. Over time, families often get quite good at making excuses for abusers. The abuse can become their new normal, become the baseline to the point where they really don't recognize how bad, how dangerous it really is, but do know they need to try to make it look better than it is to others who 'won't understand.' And you might be reluctant to really press the issue with your partner about the extent of your concerns surrounding a family member they love. Things that can be written off as a difference in parenting style or a clash of personalities, things you don't like but grudgingly tolerate to try to keep the peace.

What's been reported is that a friend of Josh said he didn't think it was safe for the kids to be at Oak Park Station. That could have been referring to tip-of-the-iceberg neglectful or abusive behavior that concerned him enough to worry about but not enough to force things to come to a head.

And I might have missed the part about his reaction to annoying media tracking him down, do you have a link? I've seen pictures they've taken of him looking just kind of shattered, but haven't read anything about him shouting at them while brandishing weapons, or even interacting directly with reporters at all. There is one picture taken from a distance where he seems to be holding a sawzall with a headline about how he's furious...but that's a clickbait heading, it just says a friend of his said he's furious that his little boy went missing, nothing about threatening anyone with the tool, and it looks like he just stepped outside briefly while working on something or other. If he's got a temper, from what little I've seen he's kept it more in check under similar provocation.
 
  • #4,532
<modsnip: Quoted post was removed>

In case others are not aware, WS has a Check Sources tool now (on each post, next to the Report button - might be in a different position on a mobile device, not sure). Where the link can be checked for veracity of the publication. The rating originates from a site called Media Bias/Fact Check.

It provides us with info on the credibility rating (and other things) of the allowed links.

ETA; The BIAS rating is for the political affiliation, which is useful in some other cases here on WS. Sometimes it might say left-leaning, centre-right leaning, etc.


Eg: link

Screenshot of Check Source result:
a.webp
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #4,533
In case others are not aware, WS has a Check Sources tool now (on each post, next to the Report button - might be in a different position on a mobile device, not sure). Where the link can be checked for veracity of the publication. The rating originates from a site called Media Bias/Fact Check.

It provides us with info on the credibility rating (and other things) of the allowed links.


Eg: link

Screenshot of Check Source result:
View attachment 642611
Thanks SouthA. I wondered what that button was for.
 
  • #4,534
As some have already noted if this is indeed a major crime, there is a major secondary crime to be discussed in allowing all those police, SES, defence force, volunteer and private corporations to waste all their time, effort and money when Gus never wandered off. The wasted cost alone, in the midst of a cost of living and housing crisis, is abhorrent. While it pales in comparison to what may have happened to poor Gus, it really makes me disgusted that someone could sit back and watch all that going on, all those people searching in the summer heat and dust, knowing full well Gus is not there.
RSBM
I totally agree, and to add to that - all those people searching for Gus were in a certain amount of danger too: from mine shafts, snakes, heatstroke. They were "happy" to do it of course, but I'll be really angry if it turns out to have been completely unnecessary, due to a very selfish person who must not be named yet.
 
  • #4,535
  • #4,536
As a lurker, read this thread start to finish and felt compelled to make an account with this new, sadly expected development. As others have noted, a large amount of what we've been told hasn't been confirmed at all but instead are statements that this presser cast in doubt by alluding to inconsistencies in the narrative. And beyond that, a lot of hearsay and rumors vaguely insinuating things about the larger context of this situation, and a lot to try to read between the lines, decipher subtext, interpret what little is being said and just as importantly what isn't being said. So here's my attempt to lay out some significant seeming details, and see how they might fit together, my own opinion and conjecture only.

The most widely repeated narrative of the timeline is that grandmother Shannon Murray was watching Gus and Ronnie while Jess and Josie worked far off on the property, that as of 5:00 pm Gus was left playing outside in a pile of sand/dirt while she prepared dinner and tended to his little brother and that at 5:30 pm when she went to call him in, he had vanished. I don't recall ever seeing a timeline for when Jess and Josie returned and/or were informed that Gus was missing, but from there they searched for several hours before calling the police, who arrived about an hour later, after nightfall. The police involvement is the only genuinely documented part of this whole story, the rest would depend on statements from the family about what happened leading up to that point, which we've now been told are inconsistent enough to make someone a suspect. The only trace found after an exhaustive search was a footprint that might have been made by Gus, but (if I recall correctly) the tracker said could have been left over a week before the day Gus as reported missing. The police no longer believe the story that he wandered off. There have been other anomalies with the usual course of missing children cases; the long delay before a single photo was released, the lack of direct appeal to the public. You may or may not have raised an eyebrow over these things, they're open to interpretation but not really conclusive of anything alone.

The police have said that neither of his parents are suspects/the suspect. Whether they've been actively ruled out or the police are working an angle remains to be seen, but they have made it clear that the suspect they were speaking of in the presser is not either of them, and by process of elimination with other official statements made that seems to point solidly at a grandparent (more on that shortly). We were told that Josh Lamont had not been informed that his son was missing until police contacted him, waking him early the next morning. We've heard less officially that Josh and Josie were at odds, that he was not staying on the property because of it, and that he felt it was unsafe for his children to be there (for unspecified reasons). It could potentially be read into this mentioned hostility that his relationship with Shannon was significantly better. We've heard that he and Jess were still in a relationship, though a 'commuter' one, and he was fixing up a home for his family to live in together and had planned to have Gus enrolled in a nearby preschool in the coming term. We've also heard that they mostly already lived together in a home owned by Shannon in Adelaide, with Jess presumably going out to Oak Park Station periodically to help her elderly parents manage it and bringing their children with her. I may be misremembering if it was established what Josh does for a living, but I believe it was implied it was mainly odd jobs rather than something more regular and structured? Which if so could potentially further speak to the extent of the hostility between Josh and Josie, if he were unwelcome on the property even temporarily when extra hands were needed (may also be misremembering if it was established if Josh was experienced working with sheep), if he had an open enough schedule to allow him to do so. We've heard particularly unsubstantiated rumors that Josh has a mouth that's made him some enemies and that Jess is painfully shy but very smart.

We've heard that Oak Park Station was in Jess's family for generations, that Shannon inherited it from her mother, Clair Jones, presumably intended to be passed on to Jess, and had he lived, maybe eventually on to Gus. We've heard that Jess's grandfather, Vincent Pfeiffer, was integral to running it while he was alive and was very much the patriarch figure of the family/property. We don't know the nature of the current property ownership, who is on the deed under what terms. We've heard that Josie's *preemptive mod snip by me* happened after Vincent died (and I believe that Clair died before him?). There is some uncertainty around whether Shannon and Josie are still married, or what the exact nature of their relationship to one another is now (not that relationships are always what they seem from the outside looking in anyway).

We've heard the Oak Park Station family is liked and respected in the area generally, and friends and neighbors have spoken to the media on their behalf, called them good people, expressed indignation about speculation that Gus may not have wandered off, helped search. We've heard that they are at least somewhat involved in their very rural community, but are also very private people. Some of the high regard expressed for the family seems to be inherited from the esteem the community held for Vincent (this is a familiar dynamic from my own rural hometown with deep generational roots; you get somewhat judged by who your family is). We don't know how close people in the community really are to any of them, though, if there are any people who are truly inner circle for Jess, Shannon, and/or Josie, who are confided in, who spend one on one time together. So we don't really know if anyone outside of the family would actually know if there was something wrong going on behind the scenes, or if that high esteem comes from being people who 'keep themselves to themselves' and don't cause trouble for their neighbors, maybe help out with community concerns, and seem pleasant enough in brief interactions. Of all people outside the Oak Park Station clan, Josh might be the most inner-circle 'outsider' due to his relationship with Jess...and his reportedly antagonistic relationship with Josie. We've also heard from a friend of Josh, who helped him search at least one night and seemed to express some skepticism about the whole thing, and might consider that he's most likely basing his interpretations on what Josh has told him (bearing in mind that Josh might not be a reliable narrator himself, particularly if he holds any anger and/or resentment about the whole situation leading up to this tragedy). We've heard Josh is furious, and the divide has worsened in the aftermath, that things were said that can't be unsaid, that he isn't welcome on the property.

Circling back to the official release, we know that police have said they have a suspect, no longer believe Gus wandered off, don't believe he was abducted. Believe he is dead. At the least, their latest statement implies that his death was covered up by this suspect and the 'wandered off' narrative was fabricated as part of this. It is unclear whether they believe he had an accident or this suspect hurt him, and they might not have come to a conclusion on this themselves. They have reported that they've seized vehicles and devices from the property. They have reported that there were inconsistencies in the narrative the family provided. They have said that neither of the parents is this suspect. They stated that no one was on the property at the time Gus vanished other than the three adults (I do think it's likely this was a misstatement and they just forgot to include Ronnie in that count, since he couldn't be reasonably looked at as a suspect), although they also stated that they are still looking into when Gus can last be confirmed alive rather than relying on the family's word. If taken at face value, this narrows the suspect down to the grandparents. They reported that the suspect has lawyered up and stopped cooperating. Both Shannon and Josie have reportedly employed high level criminal defense lawyers. It's been stated that Shannon is still cooperating with the investigation. If that's true, that implies Josie is the suspect.

We know Josie has a temper and a gun (outside of the police statement, this is one of the few things we do actually know). We know Josie has been photographed and filmed interacting with police and searchers, has seemed to be the one directing them and the one making direct statements (such as 'you can't help'), has been the most public face of the family. As the public from the outside looking in, Shannon and Jess are ghosts. Jess's whereabouts unknown since this started and shown only by photos lifted from social media, Shannon photographed a couple of times now in public places from a distance, always out with Josie. I find it slightly strange that, as someone who was named by the family as the last person to see Gus alive, Shannon has been so invisible in this, including when the media were first there in the initial search taking photos. No photos of her walking them through the last moments she saw before Gus 'wandered off.' Just Josie. It does make me wonder about the dynamics of this family.

But if (again, IF, this is based on piecing together a lot of different accounts that may not be accurate) Josie is the one and only suspect, how could that fit in with everything else? How would Jess and Shannon not know something else happened, particularly because one or both would have had to lie to support that narrative? Wouldn't that at least make them suspects for complicity in a cover-up, which would put them on equal footing with the suspect in event of an accident? Unless. Remember that nothing about that initial narrative before the police were called is confirmed. Just one slight change could change everything. Consider the possibility that Josie was at home with the children and Shannon was out working with Jess when whatever happened to Gus happened. Consider the possibility that Jess and Shannon were then told that Gus was playing on the dirt pile and wandered off instead of the truth. And consider the possibility that they decided (or were told) to tell a lie that seemed like a small, harmless one when they couldn't find him and decided to call the police: that Shannon had been the one watching him when he disappeared. A lie that would be almost irrelevant if he had just walked off into the scrub and gotten lost, and certainly wouldn't have made any difference to how quickly they could find him if you just swapped one grandma in the story for another, right? I can think of a couple of solid reasons that could motivate this particular lie. One, to protect Josie from being looked at with more suspicion than Shannon might be due to *preemptive mod snip by me* and provide an alibi, far off with Jess when it happened. 'They'll think I did something bad to him but will believe her.' And/or two, maybe Josh didn't want Josie watching his kids and would have been angry if he'd found out. Would be more likely to forgive a lapse in supervision if he believed it was Shannon. Maybe Josie, temper included, was why Josh didn't think his kids were safe there, not the land.

Again, my own opinion and conjecture only. I have additional questions and suspicions, but a public forum isn't the place for them and this is already a novel.
You write beautifully, I loved your post. So clearly and deeply thought out. Thankyou for the information. May it bring good things. Best x
 
  • #4,537
Right from the beginning there were a few odd things:
- no toys, just some dirt
- only 1 photo (eventually)
- what the tracker said
- unfriendliness
- what else?
 
Last edited:
  • #4,538
She also travelled all the way from a different state and spent many hours driving there. Surely if she wanted to find out if the grandparents were open to a ‘chat’ she could have called them? IMO

It seemed to me to be a stunt to get a “scoop”.

I still find it strange that the GP came out with a gun in response, though. Two things can be true.

IMO only.
I revisited the video recently. It appeared to me that she came out with gun in hand as if she was doing something else ie dealing with a snake. I think the DM were looking for a scoop as a you say. And that is just what they got!
 
  • #4,539
Right from the beginning there were a few odd things:
- no toys, just some dirt
- only 1 photo
- what the tracker said
- unfriendliness
- what else?
What the tracker said, seems so important now. Or what he didn't say.
 
  • #4,540
Like I said earlier I think we need to stop talking about the families version of events. There is no credibility that any of it is true.
It's likely Gus died long before the call to police. They would of wanted time to deal with any evidence and make a story up. They could of waited days/weeks/months to call police.
You are correct. We know absolutely nothing about what the real truth is except what has been found. A dubious footprint but what the Tracker stated is an implied statement meaning he found clues that the Police are aware of and that he himself wants to write about Gus. This Tracker has help solve cases for the Police. This means something tangible. There are inconsistent statements by parties that conflict with what has been stated and what that Tracker found. There is evidence that can be lifted from the software and devices taken by the Police. They must have the evidence but need absolute confirmation. And indeed the Police are not happy that they and many others in this crime have had precious time wasted when this case could have been resolved months ago if people would only tell the truth in the first place.
 

Guardians Monthly Goal

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
149
Guests online
2,138
Total visitors
2,287

Forum statistics

Threads
644,398
Messages
18,816,505
Members
245,351
Latest member
COLDANDMISSINGCANADA
Top