Detectives investigating the case of missing boy Gus Lamont have made an arrest during their renewed search for evidence – but say it does not relate to his disappearance.
Hmmmm, they haven't mentioned the snake, just the media ....
So we can't rule out that the firearm offense was to do with the "snake tale" as that is different from the media incident....
The pressure is being increased little by little ...
Probably not- they’re not the honest people Fleur Tiver said, and don’t seem to have a conscience. Let’s see how they go outsmarting the cops. Jess might’ve noticed the grandparents “searching” an area that has been a lie by omission. Fingers crossed.
Suspect Procedure Police can obtain DNA samples under the Suspect Procedure where a person is suspected on reasonable grounds of having committed a serious offence. A “serious offence” means any offence that is punishable by imprisonment as a maximum penalty under the legislation and includes summary offences and indictable offences. This can include some driving offences and more serious offences.
In 1999 South Australia police began to compile a database of DNA profiles which has grown to over 100,000 assisted by the powers created by the Criminal L
Hmmmm, they haven't mentioned the snake, just the media ....
So we can't rule out that the firearm offense was to do with the "snake tale" as that is different from the media incident....
The pressure is being increased little by little ...
The Oct incident has it's own set of circumstances and jmo isn't relevant here.
According to source below, bail isn't the norm for serious firearms offences. Imo if police had been unambigously "ordered off the property" via use of a weopen that would be a serious firearm offence and no bail would have been granted.
Bail was granted in the Magistrates Court per ABC report. Imo serious firearms offences would be escalated to a higher court. Jmo
This article by Williams Family Lawyers looks at the definition of family violence, resolution, intervention orders, and safety with attenting family law court.
" 'As aresult of a previous search at Oak Park Station,
Task Force Horizon detectives
have today arrested a 75-year-old from Grampus and charged them with firearm offences',
a spokesperson said on Monday.
'They have been bailed to appear in the Peterborough Magistrates Court on May 6'."
Hmmmm, they haven't mentioned the snake, just the media ....
So we can't rule out that the firearm offense was to do with the "snake tale" as that is different from the media incident....
The pressure is being increased little by little ...
Detectives investigating the case of missing boy Gus Lamont have made an arrest during their renewed search for evidence – but say it does not relate to his disappearance.
- A grandmother was to take care of 2 kids.
- Being on a farm I bet she had lots of household chores.
Plus she had to prepare dinner for 2 adults who probably were ravenous after hard work at the paddock.
Is it possible that she ALLEGEDLY medicated Gus to nap and not wake up Baby R.
while she had to engage in her tasks??
But, unfortunately the boy ALLEGEDLY didn't wake up.
Could even be allergic to the meds, sleeping pills.
IMO, something like that could be possible, but there's really a huge number of things that could have happened. Let's narrow it for the sake of speculation that there was no malice, no history of abuse, no moment of anger leading to doing something terrible that couldn't be undone, something more in line with an accident than anything else. I do think your idea here would hold a lot more water than the 'bitten by a snake' speculation, because it would carry more culpability, more blame, more shame, be less understandable. The story that Gus was left alone outside for half an hour and wandered off in that timeframe would be a narrative crafted to sound more justifiable than what actually happened, IMO, because otherwise what would be the point in lying?
Speculation only, but what if? I see exactly one plaything shown in the photos outside on their property. The trampoline. I just looked up regulations in Australia, and it looks like since 2020, before Gus was born, it has been illegal to sell a trampoline without a net unless it's an in-ground one, which this is not. So this would have been an older one, maybe even from when Jess was a kid, not illegal for them to own but now considered too unsafe to sell. Now, I grew up playing on trampolines like that one, and we always had a blast on them. Everyone also knew at least one kid who got hurt on one. Usually something like a broken arm or dislocated shoulder. Now if Gus ever got to play on that thing, it could easily be his favorite thing ever that he always wanted to play on. It could also be something that Jess absolutely forbid him playing on because she was afraid he'd get hurt, while her parents could have taken the stance of 'We let you play on it and it was fine, you're being overprotective.' Now he could have just made a beeline for it at some point when playing alone outside, fallen wrong
and broken his neck or cracked his skull on the metal frame
, then been found, already gone. Or what seems more likely in light of the 'lie' part of it, the part that assumes whatever actually happened was worse than leaving him alone outside for half an hour, he was allowed to play on it by an indulgent grandmother behind Jess's back, with the mindset of 'he loves it so much, and what she doesn't know won't hurt her.' That either the same happened, or...he hit his head, hard, an anxious and guilty grandmother convinced herself he was ok and no one needed to know, maybe as the day wore on he seemed a little more tired and groggy than usual, maybe put him down for a nap...and then he never woke up. Serious brain injuries can be insidious like that, kids can seem mostly ok after the initial injury but be hemorrhaging and die if not treated quickly. For that matter, something similar could have happened if he'd just been running around and fell and hit his head wrong. Accidentally getting your grandson killed by disobeying your daughter's instructions and/or showing poor judgement and not getting him medical attention immediately, and you might think your only child would hate you less for it if he were "just missing."
It’s got to be far worse for them to decide that wasting all the resources and costing the country a fortune and lying to their daughter is the better option. IMO
I'm not sure I agree with this, it can be hard to say how people weigh these things, especially when strong emotions, panicky reasoning, etc come into play. IMO, particularly the way that lies can grow, and people can feel trapped in them, a sort of sunk cost fallacy. When the initial lie was told, the liar might not have grasped how huge the search would truly become, maybe thought they'd look and not find anything and give up, that the investigation would go away, maybe rationalized that it would be less painful for Jess for Gus to be 'missing' than confirmed dead, or other more self-serving reasons ("I don't want her to hate me"). But the bigger everything got, the more resources and effort and time spent, watching how devastated Jess was, the harder it would become to 'come clean' and admit the lie...and the responsibility for it. For all of it. It would take a lot of integrity and strength of character to own up to it at this point, and likely more than someone who initially lied about something like this has. Again, my opinion only.
(And I don't at all disagree with the possibility of something more violent being responsible, just trying to reason through different possibilities.)
" 'As aresult of a previous search at Oak Park Station,
Task Force Horizon detectives
have today arrested a 75-year-old from Grampus and charged them with firearm offences',
a spokesperson said on Monday.
'They have been bailed to appear in the Peterborough Magistrates Court on May 6'."
" 'As a result of a previous search at Oak Park Station,
Task Force Horizon detectives
have today arrested a 75-year-old from Grampus and charged them with firearm offences',
a spokesperson said on Monday."
What does it exactly mean?
As a result of a previous search...
For anyone who wants to speculate re what the firearm related offences could be.
At this point, have to assume it is one of the grandparents, unless another person of similar age was at Oak Park at the time of today's police activity. Jmo
ETA Summary article of various offences and subsequent proceedings through legal system.
Firearms and Weapon Offences in South Australia: Find out the laws governing the use, possession, and storage that can lead to serious consequences. Possessing a firearm without a valid licence is an offence.
And it must have been rather minor charge, as it looks like Josie must have driven themselves to the Police station and was free to drive themselves home again.
Really? And I considered that the lowest probability. Can a link to that be found and posted? I admit to not having viewed the DM photos upthread. Are they accurate do you know?
" 'As a result of a previous search at Oak Park Station,
Task Force Horizon detectives
have today arrested a 75-year-old from Grampus and charged them with firearm offences',
a spokesperson said on Monday."
What does it exactly mean?
As a result of a previous search...
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
www.abc.net.au
