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

[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.

 

[linge]

<modsnip: Quoted post was removed>

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.

 

[jepop]

<modsnip: Quoted post was removed>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

 

[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

 

[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.

 

[Sillybilly]

Okay folks, please re-read Tricia's post above this one.

Thread is open again.

 

[SouthAussie]

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

In the situation stated in your post "LE publicly accuses, and doesn't ever indict", I think the legal remedy for the suspect would be a lawsuit against the govt of the state.

The police are being very careful to not name the suspect in this case. I don't know if that would help them avoid a lawsuit (if they don't charge) because it seems pretty clear they are saying one of the grandparents is now a suspect.
Maybe both of the grandparents could sue, if no charges are brought?

imo

 

[Old Soul]

“It can now be revealed the couple had separated before Gus vanished, with Ms Murray (Jess) and her newborn son, Ronnie, living with her parents, Shannon and Josie Murray, on the remote station.”

“Several sources have told the Daily Mail that Mr Lamont attended Oak Park station two days after his son vanished.

The family friend claims Mr Lamont got into a furious row with Jessica's father, Josie, during the desperate search, after previous disputes.

Gus's devastated mother, Jessica, 39, has never spoken or appeared publicly since her son vanished, but locals say she is 'shocked' by the police statement last week.”
From the Daily Mail

note: All sources in the article are cited as “locals, friends or family friends” so not actually confirmed by the Murray and Lamont families.

Gus Lamont's parents 'split' as new details emerge over mum Jessica

Gus Lamont's parents had split up just months before the toddler vanished from his grandparents' outback sheep station, a family friend has revealed.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[packetgravy]

Due to the increase in Josie based theorising, I want to share my own observations. I have focused on behavioural analysis research and case studies/reports, applying my findings (and perception) to Josie’s overall public presentation.


Reminder: MOO

I believe Josie is demonstrating the typical behaviours expected of someone protecting their family at a time of trauma… instead of protecting themselves. I wouldn’t be surprised if this is a consistent behaviour from Josie, perhaps playing a part in the relationship breakdown with Gus’s father.


As follows:


Protective/innocent reactions often look like:

• confrontation with media/police

• anger/defensiveness

• hyper vigilant

• controlling the environment

• “guarding” property or people

• fight mode (rather than calm)



The following is the other end of the spectrum, which I feel does not apply to Josie.


Deceptive/offender behaviour commonly looks like:

• over controlled

• rehearsed language

• distancing I.E the “child” instead of a name

• inconsistent timelines

• avoiding searches

• low urgency

• oddly calm or resigned presentation (often observed during initial police interviews)

• narrative management rather than action





Resources for those interested:


Vrij A. (2008 2018) Detecting lies and deceit (Book)


DePaulo et al (2003) Cues to deception meta-analysis
APA PsycNet Search Results


Robert M. Sapolsky (1994) Why Zebras Don’t Get Ulcers (Book)

 

[BreakingNews]

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

Maybe just a storm in a tea cup. Bob and Fleur were/are concerned citizens and neighbours of Josie and Shannon. Fleur spoke out very fondly of Josie and Shannon in the early days. I wonder what they would say now. MOO.

 

[packetgravy]

Here we go again... But I actually find it bizarre that anyone finds this level of aggression normal? (Yes of course, anger in this situation could be justified, but this level of aggression?? Surely you have to have that level of aggression inside you to exhibit such aggression?). Is this normal to people? Just to listen to this person's aggression, to me it is off the scale not normal. Alarm bells ringing, red flags flying big time.

I haven’t said aggression is “ok” and I’m not condoning threatening behaviour. You have taken my post out of context.

In highly stressful situations, protective or defensive reactions can look aggressive to an observer (even when the underlying motivation is fear.)

Stress responses are not one size fits all. Behaviour presenting as extreme can absolutely be a normal reaction from someone under threat. There is often a broader picture requiring some critical thought, I highly recommend you explore the many resources available regarding behaviour response.

It’s important to distinguish intent. A person can sound or act forcefully without being a threat and that doesn’t automatically make their behaviour suspicious.

 

[FromGermany1]

“It can now be revealed the couple had separated before Gus vanished, with Ms Murray (Jess) and her newborn son, Ronnie, living with her parents, Shannon and Josie Murray, on the remote station.”

I'm not surprised at all.
Why is little Gus mentioned as "vanished" only, but not where HE was living?