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

  • #4,541
This has got to point now where every time I start reading a post and it’s about guns I am scrolling on. Anyone else?

I hope the week ahead holds some new news on this case.
 
  • #4,542
I must say Shannon looks rather meek cf Josie, JMO
 
  • #4,543
Also, wouldn't it be weird if in looking for Gus they found Tanja Ebert?
 
  • #4,544
What the tracker said, seems so important now. Or what he didn't say.
IMG_0116.webp
IMG_0117.webp

I found the tracker, Ronald Boland’s, comments in a Daily Mail YouTube video.
Is this all he has said publicly?





From: The the Daily Mail
 
  • #4,545
Also, wouldn't it be weird if in looking for Gus they found Tanja Ebert?
Wouldn’t that be an interesting turn of events
 
  • #4,546
Also, wouldn't it be weird if in looking for Gus they found Tanja Ebert?
There’s a few hundred kilometres between where each went missing, and the flinders ranges.
 
  • #4,547
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.
If I'm reading this correctly, the implication is that Gus' dad didn't trust grandparent, Josie, and you snip yourself before saying what you snipped is the cause of this distrust, not, say, firearms.

Firearms are not always a red flag IMO in such a rural setting, but they could be. Bringing them out too readily certainly could be.

But the topic you are snipping around makes the person who distrusts far more suspicious and dangerous than the person distrusted.

There is no statistical back up of increased violence by a person in the snipped situation, but there is oodles of evidence that a person who has gone through what you are snipping will be the victim of violence far more often than average.

My heart aches for Gus, wherever he is.

MOO
 
  • #4,548
View attachment 642634 View attachment 642635

I found the tracker, Ronald Boland’s, comments in a Daily Mail YouTube video.
Is this all he has said publicly?





From: The the Daily Mail
He looks to be a very interesting person. I can't really recall details but have the feeling that Oak Park might be part of Mr Boland's traditional country. I know that it was reported he'd worked the stations in that area in the past.

Re talking to media, I think as he worked in tracking capacity with SAPOL he's part of the investigative team. As such he didn't say much when the DM approached him for comment back then and won't be saying anything further about his role. Jmo. The investigation is still ongoing and it wouldn't be right for him to publicly give an opinion ( if he has one or had one) on what he thinks about Gus' disappearance, or talk in detail about the search he was involved in... Jmo.

ETA, the DM wrote an article that may have included some more comments, about his past work or similar from memory, but the quotes on the YouTube page there I think were the only ones he made about his work with SAPOL. ICBW and moo.
 
Last edited:
  • #4,549
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?
No plea, no cooperation with media.
Most people (yes I know we don't exactly what we would do in the situation), want to do everything they can to help find their loved one.
 
  • #4,550
I wonder
how much time it takes to forensically examine objects taken by Police?
I mean - bike, car, phones, computer, etc?

Honestly,
I'm surprised it wasn't done earlier
as I've always thought
that it is by default that family members are checked in missing person situation.
That it is Procedure.

Why suddenly,
after 4 months!!!,
a person is, out of the blue, considered a Suspect?
But there was not forensics done concerning the house or above mentioned objects.

Also,
Police said 138??? tips were sent.
What is it all about?
Who sent them?
Neighbours???

This farm/station is so recluse,
so how anybody knows what is going on there?

And suddenly 138 tips appeared?
I doubt they have that many neighbours.

I really don't know what to think about all this 🤔

Is the Suspect still living at home?
I guess Yes,
as this person was not charged.

But what is the evidence that this person is a Suspect?
And that others are not?

JMO
 
Last edited:
  • #4,551
ADMIN NOTE:

Some posts have been removed.

The topic of this thread is not journalist integrity. It is about the disappearance of little Gus Lamont.

Posted many moons ago .. posting again for those who missed it:

Move on from the Daily Mail discussion !!

It is distracting from discussion of what happened to Gus.

Thank you.
 
Last edited:
  • #4,552
If I'm reading this correctly, the implication is that Gus' dad didn't trust grandparent, Josie, and you snip yourself before saying what you snipped is the cause of this distrust, not, say, firearms.

That wasn't my implication here, but I'm also verbose and not always as clear as intended.

I'm saying we've heard that Josh Lamont and Josie Murray not only didn't get along but it was hostile enough between them that Josh couldn't stay there with his family. We've also heard from a friend of Josh's that he didn't think the kids were safe there, with no further elaboration on why. If both of those statements are true, we don't know if they're related or not. Is it possible that that's just a result of mindless bigotry, nothing substantial? It's not impossible, but I would argue that his child's disappearance being designated a major crime with an Oak Park Station resident as a suspect at least vindicates his misgivings about his children's safety there.

We don't know why he and Josie are antagonistic towards each other. Josie could be a bully, Josh could be a bully, they could both be bullies in some sort of way that's just oil and water (rather than the more compatible kinds of bullies who team up and bully others). Hell, Josie could have told Josh to give up on music and get a "real job" (I say as the wife of a musician). We don't know if those hard feelings between them are tied to Josh's safety concerns, but they could well be. Josh could have witnessed a different outburst of that same explosive temper around the family. He could have seen Josie letting Gus play unsupervised in dangerous parts of the property and had his concerns brushed off. Or been concerned that firearms were not being safely secured and/or handled with small children in the house. Or been told something concerning by Jess (narrated from the perspective of an adult who wanted to keep the peace and downplayed it) or told something concerning by Gus (narrated from the perspective of a small child who doesn't understand the significance/danger of what he's talking about). Or any number of small things that add up to sense of unease about them being there.

What I was implying though is you probably don't want someone you so vehemently don't get along with and likely don't trust to be entrusted with caring for your children, to the point where you might have asserted that said person is not to be left alone with them. And that if your child disappears on someone's watch, you're more likely to be understanding and forgiving if it happened under the watch of someone you have a decent relationship with, whereas if someone you were already feuding with was responsible it's just going to dump more fuel on the fire. And either of those could be a reason to want to hide it from Josh if Josie was watching the kids, not Shannon, when Gus disappeared.

My self-snipped bit was just to imply that the family might have feared this case being treated differently by biased authorities depending on if they thought Josie or Shannon had been alone with the children when it happened. Possibly enough to tell a lie that would be almost insignificant if he'd really wandered off but becomes huge if this was actually a major crime and cover up.

As for the rest, not the place to sift through statistics and generalities relating to the identity part of all of this, and the moderators/admins have made that clear, so not touching it. This case is about these individuals and the behaviors and motives that might have contributed to this child's disappearance and likely death within these complicated family dynamics, so that's what I've been trying to focus on considering.
 
  • #4,553
If the adjoining Park is considered as a place in which Gus was hidden
then I'm a little pessimistic that the boy will be found.
It is déjà vu of Samantha M's situation
and never-ending, fruitless searches in all kinds of Parks.
She was never found :(

JMO
 
Last edited:
  • #4,554
I mean, this was so obviously what happened. I wonder how people that VEHEMENTLY defended the family feel now?
 
Last edited:
  • #4,555
I wonder
how much time it takes to forensically examine objects taken by Police?
I mean - bike, car, phones, computer, etc?

Honestly,
I'm surprised it wasn't done earlier
as I've always thought
that it is by default that family members are checked in missing person situation.
That it is Procedure.

Why suddenly,
after 4 months!!!,
a person is, out of the blue, considered a Suspect?
But there was not forensics done concerning the house or above mentioned objects.

Also,
Police said 138??? tips were sent.
What is it all about?
Who sent them?
Neighbours???

This farm/station is so recluse,
so how anybody knows what is going on there?

And suddenly 138 tips appeared?
I doubt they have that many neighbours.

I really don't know what to think about all this 🤔

Is the Suspect still living at home?
I guess Yes,
as this person was not charged.

But what is the evidence that this person is a Suspect?
And that others are not?

JMO
MOO, but from the latest presser by LE it sounds like when they became more confident that Gus hadn't just wandered off and died in the vast expanse of land surrounding the homestead, enough to rule it out in their investigation for the time being, they started focusing more on the other possibilities: abduction by a stranger (which they find extremely unlikely) or a cover-up (most likely of a death). Four months of a lot of intensive searching up front, then periodic follow-ups (draining the dams, searching the mines), and a lot of analysis of all of the drone data following. Didn't they go back to the house in January to reinterview everyone? Likely with much more pointed questions since they weren't looking for a lost child anymore. Possibly separating them and talking to each family member one on one, which might not have happened initially. And they said there were inconsistencies. A number of posters here have said even the initial story seemed a bit off, and LE might agree with that assessment, but it's also very possible that at this new return to the property the story had changed when they were asked the same questions, or maybe different family members said conflicting things when asked new questions. Or said damning things.

Tips could be anything. If the community there is anything like the isolated rural community where I grew up, as much privacy as it provides, people also tend to notice more when it comes to what they do see of their neighbors, notice more when things deviate from the routine, and there tends to be a long memory. You have fewer neighbors, but your neighbors know you. A tip could be strange behavior or an offhand comment made by someone in the family that seemed more significant once Gus disappeared. It could be seeing a vehicle you don't recognize driving past (in a place where you normally only see a handful, if that, a day, and know them all), or it could be seeing a car you do recognize at an odd time ('Where are the Murrays going at this time of night?'). It could be people in the community reporting that they hadn't seen Gus for a long time. It could be a stranger showed up in town shortly before or after all of this blew up. It could be 'the Murrays usually come into our store for supplies on this schedule like clockwork, but the day before Gus went missing they came in off schedule and they bought a shovel.' It could be people talking about past encounters, aggressive or otherwise, or incidents that didn't reach the level of LE involvement but paint more of a picture now. It could be people coming forward with information they were told in confidence (remember, it's very common for perpetrators to get caught because they tell someone about it, most people have a very hard time keeping such a big secret and it can come out).

These are all hypothetical examples, conjecture, not real tips I have any knowledge of.
 
  • #4,556
MOO, but from the latest presser by LE it sounds like when they became more confident that Gus hadn't just wandered off and died in the vast expanse of land surrounding the homestead, enough to rule it out in their investigation for the time being, they started focusing more on the other possibilities: abduction by a stranger (which they find extremely unlikely) or a cover-up (most likely of a death). Four months of a lot of intensive searching up front, then periodic follow-ups (draining the dams, searching the mines), and a lot of analysis of all of the drone data following. Didn't they go back to the house in January to reinterview everyone? Likely with much more pointed questions since they weren't looking for a lost child anymore. Possibly separating them and talking to each family member one on one, which might not have happened initially. And they said there were inconsistencies. A number of posters here have said even the initial story seemed a bit off, and LE might agree with that assessment, but it's also very possible that at this new return to the property the story had changed when they were asked the same questions, or maybe different family members said conflicting things when asked new questions. Or said damning things.

Tips could be anything. If the community there is anything like the isolated rural community where I grew up, as much privacy as it provides, people also tend to notice more when it comes to what they do see of their neighbors, notice more when things deviate from the routine, and there tends to be a long memory. You have fewer neighbors, but your neighbors know you. A tip could be strange behavior or an offhand comment made by someone in the family that seemed more significant once Gus disappeared. It could be seeing a vehicle you don't recognize driving past (in a place where you normally only see a handful, if that, a day, and know them all), or it could be seeing a car you do recognize at an odd time ('Where are the Murrays going at this time of night?'). It could be people in the community reporting that they hadn't seen Gus for a long time. It could be a stranger showed up in town shortly before or after all of this blew up. It could be 'the Murrays usually come into our store for supplies on this schedule like clockwork, but the day before Gus went missing they came in off schedule and they bought a shovel.' It could be people talking about past encounters, aggressive or otherwise, or incidents that didn't reach the level of LE involvement but paint more of a picture now. It could be people coming forward with information they were told in confidence (remember, it's very common for perpetrators to get caught because they tell someone about it, most people have a very hard time keeping such a big secret and it can come out).

These are all hypothetical examples, conjecture, not real tips I have any knowledge of.

Re re-interviews.

Some say that every time one recollects something,
the recollection differs slightly from the previous one :)

It is something connected with how a brain stores and retrieves memories.

Is it true? 🤔

If someone asked me about detailed day routine from 4 months ago
I would stare emptily into the space.

But I understand this day was "special" in horrific way.
And we usually remember clearly such distressing events in detail even with passage of time.

"Etched in memory"

JMO
 
Last edited:
  • #4,557
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
Was it said what the category "detections of interest" meant? Does it mean that something living or recently deceased was detected but the program can't determine what type of animal? Or is it a tactful expression for "potential remains of a child", each instance of which would warrant priority on-ground examination?
 
  • #4,558
If Jess' parents are indeed responsible for his death and disappearance, I just can't with them. How do you see your daughter in utter distress and not try to alleviate it? How do you prioritize your needs over hers?

She may never forgive you for the death, but you know what she'll never never forgive you for? The death AND the ANGUISH of not knowing when she learns you knew.

Obviously I can't speak for Jess, but as a mother, I can imagine the depth of betrayal.

It would go toward mercy if they'd own it now. Let LE bring that little boy home, to his parents. Give them that.

JMO
 
  • #4,559
Re reinterviews.

Some say that every time one recollects something,
the recollection differs slightly from the previous one :)

It is something connected with how a brain stores memories.

Is it true?

If someone asked me about detailed day routine from 4 months ago
I would stare emptily into the space.

But I understand this day was "special" in horrific way.
And we usually remember clearly such distressing events in detail even with passage of time.

JMO
Memories are definitely less fixed and reliable than we like to imagine. Also maybe something to consider, but people's memories can also be influenced by what they believe happened, details can be magnified or minimized to fit the story as your mind attributes significance to them.

In this case, for the sake of the hypothetical, imagine the major crime designation is true, one of the grandparents actually did something (whether harming him directly or just covering up an accidental death) and the other two didn't know anything about it. In the initial panic to find Gus, fully believing he was lost out there and time was running out, your memory and account of what happened that day would likely revolve around that at first. But then time passes, and you're no longer looking for him alive and you're maybe still living in close quarters with the one who did it, someone who's maybe just acting wrong. Maybe you start to have doubts. The way you remember that day is likely to change if you don't believe he wandered away anymore. The significance of details shifts. You don't see the story the same way anymore, and so you won't tell it the same way anymore.
 
  • #4,560
Was it said what the category "detections of interest" meant? Does it mean that something living or recently deceased was detected but the program can't determine what type of animal? Or is it a tactful expression for "potential remains of a child", each instance of which would warrant priority on-ground examination?
They didn't specify in the presser, but they did also say that they didn't find anything dropped by him (such as the hat, toy shovel, shoes, etc. that posters earlier on thought he'd be likely to lose at some point). So maybe at a guess picking up things in unnatural colors and shapes showing up on the landscape, anything irregular. Every bit of blue that ends up being a bit of garbage blown in caught under a bush instead of a Minions shirt. As well as possibly holes, crevasses, rocks, abandoned vehicles or equipment, vegetation or debris that could conceal a child. Maybe patches of earth that look recently disturbed. MOO.
 

Guardians Monthly Goal

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
478
Guests online
4,778
Total visitors
5,256

Forum statistics

Threads
640,427
Messages
18,760,226
Members
244,666
Latest member
nosyrosy78
Back
Top