• #5,281
I could not imagine someone who lived out there ever contaminating a water tank.
Septic tanks but not water tanks.
But I would have thought that the water tanks would have all been searched when Gus first went missing in case he accidentally entered a tank. Same as they checked all the dams.
True, water is a precious resource, especially out there. We do know a lot of "stuff" was lying around the property at the time Gus went missing, and I'm not sure where all the water tanks near the home were located, but is there a chance Gus was able to enter one and drowned? Death by misadventure because he was unsupervised for a period of time?

Talking about water tank deaths and periods of time passing, check out the Elisa Lam story.
 
  • #5,282
Think your questions here are important ones. I'm very curious if the second one stopped cooperating with SAPOL before or right after the firearms arrest.

From cases I've followed, it doesn't seem very uncommon for the partner of someone suspected of a crime who was initially helpful to LE to then stop helping and take the 'side' of that partner being investigated against police, particularly as the investigation ramps up enough to start feeling harassed. A lot of the time it seems to be feeling sorry for the partner ('they're all alone,' 'no one else believes them,' 'they need me,' 'the cops are picking on them,' 'it's not fair'), either believing innocence ('they could never') or feeling guilty, like it's a betrayal, for doubting innocence (or being made to feel guilty for it; 'You know me better than anyone, how could you believe I could ever kill someone?' paraphrasing many a killer), loyalty, as you say, getting sucked back into the 'we're a team, we're in this together, it's us against the world' mindset. Feelings of love, trust, history, loyalty, obligation don't just switch off when someone you have deep connections with is suspected of a terrible crime, they're both powerful forces that drive decisions all on their own and also things that can be actively manipulated by others.

But if this arrest was used as an opportunity to separate and question them, and the way it played out ended in the second one ending cooperation, it's possible something in the course of it made the previously cooperative non-suspect (or their lawyer) realize they were beginning to be implicated in this too, if they helped in a cover up or something of that nature. Or if somehow wholly innocent and genuinely in the dark as to what happened to Gus, possibly been shocked by the implications of the questions being asked, didn't believe it was possible the other could do what the police were suggesting, went into denial, whatever. Or even just realized that their own answers were beginning to make the suspect look more guilty, despite maybe initially believing that cooperating would help prove innocence. And any of those things could have been the push needed to comply with what the suspect probably already wanted, which was for them to help stonewall SAPOL, be a united front giving them nothing more than they already have.

JMO.
They have both lawyered up. It seems obvious to me that each lawyer would tell their client not to say another word. Especially without their lawyer present. Otherwise why lawyer up, then not heed their advice. It's their right not to speak. Nothing sinister about it.
 
  • #5,284
They have both lawyered up. It seems obvious to me that each lawyer would tell their client not to say another word. Especially without their lawyer present. Otherwise why lawyer up, then not heed their advice. It's their right not to speak. Nothing sinister about it.
Very normal to obtain legal representation to act on your behalf,legally, as per our rights we don’t have to comment or speak to police beyond confirming our id, and every lawyer would encourage you to invoke this right
 
  • #5,285
I really hope it’s true that Jason O’Connell has an independent search team ready to go and begins his own investigation (as Rob Parsons did in the Celine Cremer case).
It's not really and Aussie thing to do. Usually we leave it to the police. Or we might find ourselves charged with interfering with an investigation
 
  • #5,286
It's not really and Aussie thing to do. Usually we leave it to the police. Or we might find ourselves charged with interfering with an investigation
And now he is complaining about the media attention after willfully making a post 2 days ago on a facebook group for Gus that apparently has journos in it.

If you don't want the attention , than don't talk in the first place IMO
Why post in the first place & not just go about your own business. I think it was a very foolish thing to do in a very active major crime investigation & than cry foul when it goes pear shape.

JMO
 
Last edited:
  • #5,287
It's not really and Aussie thing to do. Usually we leave it to the police. Or we might find ourselves charged with interfering with an investigation
If you read his public statement he says he will be conducting a search when police give him the ok
 
  • #5,288
ABC reports places searched were 30km and 24km west of Oak Park homestead.


Old Grampus, 24 km west of Oak Park homestead (also 24 mins).


Unlabelled buildings, 28 KMS west of Oak Park homestead.


The 24km distant one is likely to be old Grampus, the 30km Bullyaninnie (as reported by channel 9 or 10 or 7 up thread, though Google does not label).If you zoom in, these buildings are just off Bullyaninnie Road, 28km to the west of Oak Park and about 4-6 km west of Grampus homestead/buildings). Jmo
This site has Bullyaninnie marked, but incorrect spelling.

 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_20260219_185559_Chrome.webp
    Screenshot_20260219_185559_Chrome.webp
    162.2 KB · Views: 15
  • #5,289
Summary by DM reporter Ms Karleigh Smith 👍


This also covers material from earlier DM article which was behind paywall.
 
  • #5,290
Dbm
 
  • #5,291
I agree.
This empty farm would have made a perfect temporary hiding place.
Police were busy at Oak Park station that night looking for a boy.
Nobody mentioned this place.

This empty station is news to me.
I thought neighbours were nearby.

Hmmm... 🤔

JMO
How did it take the police 4 months to figure that out and search it?!
 
  • #5,292
 
  • #5,293
  • #5,294
Every so often it helps to switch your assumptions or give them a little shake up :) Like many (most?) people, I assumed the first person who withdrew cooperation was Josie - but what if it was Shannon. The discrepancies might have been in her story of the day’s timings. Then, while at the police station, a chat with Josie revealed to her that the police knew certain things and that she, by continuing to cooperate, could give them info that could either get Shannon in trouble or herself or the both of them. Maybe a line of questioning became uncomfortable. So Josie too withdrew cooperation?

I’m not saying that’s what I believe happened, just giving assumptions a shake to create other thoughts :)

All speculation and MOO.
 
  • #5,295
Grandma Josie is fiercely protective of her privacy, when a reporter visited, she saw her off, while holding a shotgun.

View attachment 646235
View attachment 646234

I thought these pictures were completely unrelated to the firearms charge? Not sure why they are being posted again. Also, considering we don't have the full information (we have no idea which grandparent the police suspect) - if I was innocent, my grandchild was missing and a random person turned up to my remote property after being told to stay away I'd probably be terrified and would likely arm myself if I had the means to, I don't think it's weird IMO.

I personally think it was Shannon that stopped cooperating first and that Josie has withdrawn hers following the firearm charge. We will have to wait and see what the searches bring. Fingers crossed they find him.
 
  • #5,296
I personally think it was Shannon that stopped cooperating first and that Josie has withdrawn hers following the firearm charge.
I’m starting to think the same way.
 
  • #5,297
Perhaps worrying questions arose related to the police search of the two locations very recently? If so, that might be good in that it would show the police are on the right track.

Would any body simply be disposed of efficiently in the most hard to find place, or would there be an element of commemoration and care - eg in a place special from childhood, a secret pace discovered years ago, a place close to happy memories, a place with some mark invisible to others but known by those involved, a place that could be visited on occasion without the excuse of another reason?
 
  • #5,298
Perhaps worrying questions arose related to the police search of the two locations very recently? If so, that might be good in that it would show the police are on the right track.

Would any body simply be disposed of efficiently in the most hard to find place, or would there be an element of commemoration and care - eg in a place special from childhood, a secret pace discovered years ago, a place close to happy memories, a place with some mark invisible to others but known by those involved, a place that could be visited on occasion without the excuse of another reason?
I’m predicting if they are responsible for Gus’ disappearance there would be no commemoration or care shown. IMO

That’s from looking at many similar crimes.

The grandparents might be innocent. I’m not saying they are responsible.
 
  • #5,299
“I’m predicting if they are responsible for Gus’ disappearance there would be no commemoration or care shown. IMO”

Very sad if so @Ellery84 😔
 
  • #5,300
I thought these pictures were completely unrelated to the firearms charge? Not sure why they are being posted again. Also, considering we don't have the full information (we have no idea which grandparent the police suspect) - if I was innocent, my grandchild was missing and a random person turned up to my remote property after being told to stay away I'd probably be terrified and would likely arm myself if I had the means to, I don't think it's weird IMO.

I personally think it was Shannon that stopped cooperating first and that Josie has withdrawn hers following the firearm charge. We will have to wait and see what the searches bring. Fingers crossed they find him.
Yes, that's right...this is old 'news'. Imo a dead horse (discussed and analysed ad nauseum). There is a lot of at-the-time context to that incident, from my time on this thread some people see that as relevant, some don't, but either way, what happened in October has zero relevance to the current firearms charges. Jmo

Per SAPOL, the firearms charges are unrelated to the October incident and unrelated to the current investigation/ evidence gathering concerning Gus's disappearance and presumed death.

I'm sure, in the interests of building and maintaining public trust, SAPOL aren't feeding the public false info when they unambiguously convey such a basic and uncomplicated statement. It's not some hidden message. Unrelated means unrelated. They want the public to know that and they want the media to know it .

When /if charges are laid, reporting on this case goes sub judice, but even now I don't see any media running opinion pieces where the substance is speculating on connections. All reports I've read have been careful to relay SAPOL's statement.

Imo police are likely looking ahead and being cautious and, dare I say it, fair. Although not sub judice, I'd imagine they are mindful of a time when there may be an arrest. I think this statement is an eg of proactive transparency, with one goal being to protect the right to fair trial for any potential defendant/s. Jmo
 

Guardians Monthly Goal

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
233
Guests online
4,386
Total visitors
4,619

Forum statistics

Threads
643,097
Messages
18,793,737
Members
245,059
Latest member
Suepy123
Back
Top