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

[packetgravy]

So it leads me to believe this may be a case of manslaughter, then a cover up, not murder.

Perhaps I'm way off..

You aren’t.

moo.

 

[Lucy6226]

The only things anyone needs to differentiate is that their names are Josie and Shannon. Period.

We have no control over how the Daily Mail or other publications word their articles, but we do have a mega say in how members discuss matters at Websleuths.

Please leave the trans references out of this discussion. Thank you.

Polite reminder in case anyone is new to the thread and missed the mods posts ^

 

[Orbweaver]

Does the latest presser change anyone’s views on the gentleman that called into that radio show saying he knew Gus was still alive?

 

[Ruminations]

The case was transferred to the Missing Persons Investigation Section of SAPOL within the week of when Gus Went missing. A person may have been considered a suspect from day one. We aren't privy to that information. Neither do we know what evidence they gathered at that time.

I doubt that it took four months to start looking at a certain person as a suspect and then start looking for evidence.

https://www.police.sa.gov.au/sa-police-news-assets/add-to-all-lsas/disappearance-of-gus-lamont-declared-a-major-crime

I don't know anything about Australian law. (And for that matter I'm not a lawyer in my own country, the U.S.)

But in the U.S. if a person is labeled a suspect publicly there can begin to be a legal risk to the prosecutors if they don't eventually give a person an ability to defend themselves without taking away a persons right to remain silent. It could become an abuse of power without even using the courts, turning the suspect into a victim.

If LE publicly accuses, and doesn't ever indict, or takes too long to indict, they are participating in destroying a reputation while never giving a person a day in court. In addition, the longer such an accusation is in the ether without a charge, the more biased potential jurors become. The suspect begins to have a very valid defense that LE tainted the jury pool.

So LE in the U.S. avoids saying out loud who figures in their criminal theories too soon.

MOO

 

[jepop]

I don't know anything about Australian law. (And for that matter I'm not a lawyer in my own country, the U.S.)

But in the U.S. if a person is labeled a suspect publicly there can begin to be a legal risk to the prosecutors if they don't eventually give a person an ability to defend themselves without taking away a persons right to remain silent. It could become an abuse of power without even using the courts, turning the suspect into a victim.

If LE publicly accuses, and doesn't ever indict, or takes too long to indict, they are participating in destroying a reputation while never giving a person a day in court. In addition, the longer such an accusation is in the ether without a charge, the more biased potential jurors become. The suspect begins to have a very valid defense that LE tainted the jury pool.

So LE in the U.S. avoids saying out loud who figures in their criminal theories too soon.

MOO

I'm not sure, but I think the sort of reputation destroying situ you're referring to has definately happened before in Aust. The only one I can recall right now is from WA. My details are sketchy, but a Perth public servant was publicly named as a suspect by police at some point during the decades long investigation looking for the Claremont Serial Killer (the actual perp was eventually found, tried and convicted a few years ago). I can't recall if the wongly named suspect sued or not.

I believe Lloyd Rainey ( a lawyer himself) sued Police for naming him the prime and only suspect in his wife's murder. He did go to trial but was acquitted ( but that's another story). Moo and sketchy with dates and detail.

I guess SAPOL have not technically named this suspect, and I've noticed that every msm report I've read contains a disclaimer, but of course it's clear to all and sundry that the current suspect is one of two people. Moo

 

[Dotta]

I don't know anything about Australian law. (And for that matter I'm not a lawyer in my own country, the U.S.)

But in the U.S. if a person is labeled a suspect publicly there can begin to be a legal risk to the prosecutors if they don't eventually give a person an ability to defend themselves without taking away a persons right to remain silent. It could become an abuse of power without even using the courts, turning the suspect into a victim.

If LE publicly accuses, and doesn't ever indict, or takes too long to indict, they are participating in destroying a reputation while never giving a person a day in court. In addition, the longer such an accusation is in the ether without a charge, the more biased potential jurors become. The suspect begins to have a very valid defense that LE tainted the jury pool.

So LE in the U.S. avoids saying out loud who figures in their criminal theories too soon.

MOO

Exactly what I think.

Either a person is arrested
(as POI or whatever it is called in various countries)
and Police have a time limit to charge,
or a person is considered innocent.

Being called a Suspect without actual charges
is like wearing a Scarlet Letter.
Neither Innocent nor Guilty.
Living in a limbo,
with general public viewing the person as Guilty,
without being actually sentenced by Court of Law.

JMO

 

[Detechtive]

Exactly what I think.

Either a person is arrested
(as POI or whatever it is called in various countries)
and Police have a time limit to charge,
or a person is considered innocent.

Being called a Suspect without actual charged is like wearing a Scarlet Letter.
Neither Innocent or Guilty.
Living in a limbo,
with general public viewing the person as Guilty.

JMO

Police have strategic reasons for saying so - and they’re not obliged to disclose that to us.

 

[linge]

Thank you. This is just a massive effort and very, very much appreciated. The ABC YouTube transcript is pretty dodgy and difficult to follow. But this is so useful. I'll refer back to this often I'm sure, along with many other posters here.

Glad it was helpful! I've done transcription work professionally for a good decade or so, so in this case it was starting with that dodgy transcript and then...tearing it to pieces and making it match what he actually said instead (although after the fact see I missed at least one of the flubs and can no longer edit it, "foot surge," grr). Might end up making a second one without all of the stutters, ums, and uhs for a cleaner read-through, but thought in this case it could be helpful to see if there were any points when Fielke seemed to get more flustered.

 

[jepop]

It would take 1 minute with AI

Wow, that's kinda offensive to the OP Imo. Please read the OP's post. They transcribed it themselves and I happen to believe they are not lying.

No doubt the ABC YouTube transcript, which is full of inaccuracies, spelling and grammar mistakes which make it very difficult to read, was done using some sort of AI/computer software. IMO

 

[linge]

It would take 1 minute with AI

AI's coming for my job, but hasn't caught us yet! With this one, I started with an AI transcript then beat it with an editor stick for a couple of hours until it was more accurate.

 

[linge]

Wow, that's kinda offensive to the OP Imo. Please read the OP's post. They transcribed it themselves and I happen to believe they are not lying.

No doubt the ABC YouTube transcript, which is full of inaccuracies, spelling and grammar mistakes which make it very difficult to read, was done using some sort of AI/computer software. IMO

None taken. AI's at a point where it can quickly generate a transcript that looks like it would be right...but then if you pay attention, it falls apart, because it doesn't actually understand the content of what people say (not to mention the hallucinations). Sometimes it's 'good enough,' but when the exact details count, you still can't trust it.

 

[jepop]

None taken. AI's at a point where it can quickly generate a transcript that looks like it would be right...but then if you pay attention, it falls apart, because it doesn't actually understand the content of what people say (not to mention the hallucinations). Sometimes it's 'good enough,' but when the exact details count, you still can't trust it.

That makes sense and no prob. I was just surprised by the comment because you pointed out that it was your own work. Again, thanks for your efforts!

 

[Dotta]

Police have strategic reasons for saying so - and they’re not obliged to disclose that to us.

Let's see how quick the charges come,
because the Suspect status cannot be indefinite, right?

Somebody is EITHER Guilty or Innocent.

(Like have a cake and eat it too hahaha)

JMO

 

[TeachPeace]

It feels absurd to me that that someone’s sexual orientation / gender identity is more important to protect than motive and dynamics in a case where a child is missing. It’s possibly relevant in a coercive relationship, IMO

For instance, I watched a US crime recently where the husband was gay and he killed his wife because he was hiding it from her. His sexual orientation was THE motive and fundamental to the case. Why is it different here?

Sexuality has absolutely nothing to do with Gus being missing. Please stop trying to connect the two. It's offensive on so many levels.
Referring to another case, you state ' His sexual orientation was THE motive...'. Being gay is not a motive for killing someone.

 

[cckp72]

Does the latest presser change anyone’s views on the gentleman that called into that radio show saying he knew Gus was still alive?

Oh gosh, I forgot about this. I took him as a fraud, but I would really be happy to be wrong!

 

[jepop]

Oh gosh, I forgot about this. I took him as a fraud, but I would really be happy to be wrong!

I just think he was probably over invested, but sincere. He really wanted to believe Gus was lost but still alive somehow. Jmo

 

[Dotta]

I just think he was probably over invested, but sincere. He really wanted to believe Gus was lost but still alive somehow. Jmo

It was so sad
to hear that nobody was searching for little Gus.

I refer to the man who called a radio station and his plea to find the boy.

JMO

 

[Rikissa]

Further to this - I don’t know many women who would stay in a romantic relationship where their former husband becomes a woman meaning the biological female essentially is forced to become a lesbian if they continue in that relationship.

It just doesn’t work like that unless the bio female is bisexual from the outset, and my gay friends assure me that they were born gay and would be aghast at having to change their sexuality for their late in life transitioning partner.

I also note that Josie former Robert only transitioned after Shannon’s father died and after the inheritance.

I can’t imagine that was easy for poor Shannon. I have wondered why any heterosexual woman would stay in that situation and the only thing I can think of is that she didn’t want to but had no choice because she would lose her generational family farm. iMO

Do you mean that the only reason a heterosexual woman would chose to stay in a relationship with someone is to have access to a sexual relationship? If I understand it the grandparents have been together for a very long time, so I would think that there are many more important connections between them, and sex might never have been the #1 priority in their relationship.

 

[Lucy6226]

It feels absurd to me that that someone’s sexual orientation / gender identity is more important to protect than motive and dynamics in a case where a child is missing. It’s possibly relevant in a coercive relationship, IMO

For instance, I watched a US crime recently where the husband was gay and he killed his wife because he was hiding it from her. His sexual orientation was THE motive and fundamental to the case. Why is it different here?

Them's the rules of WS. We all agree to them on joining. They are on the bottom of every page too for easy reference

 

[tricia]

I’m closing this thread temporarily so we can clean it up.
The hostility and bias toward members of the LGBTQ community in this discussion is unacceptable. It is not who we are, and it is not what Websleuths stands for.
Hate of this nature has no place here.
There is absolutely no reason to bring up anyone’s sexuality unless it is directly and legitimately relevant to the facts of the case. If it is not directly connected to the crime, it does not belong in the discussion.
We can — and will — do better than this.