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

[BreakingNews]

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.

 

[Morequestionsthananswers]

Going on what I read important information seems to have been dismissed by police when Jason O’Connell searched alongside Josh Lamont. I discovered it today while looking at Jasons fb page - it’s a public statement, no need to be friends, anyone can read it.

 

[washysmum]

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

 

[BreakingNews]

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

 

[drsleuth]

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

 

[Morequestionsthananswers]

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

 

[spiritualdreaming]

ABC reports places searched were 30km and 24km west of Oak Park homestead.

Police scour outhouse, water tank in Gus search

SA police said they have inspected an outhouse where cement has recently been laid and a water tank as part of the latest search for Gus Lamont in South Australia's Mid North, with no evidence so far.

www.abc.net.au

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

Google Maps

Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.

maps.app.goo.gl

Unlabelled buildings, 28 KMS west of Oak Park homestead.

Google Maps

Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.

maps.app.goo.gl

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.

Oak Park map satellite // Australia, South Australia

🌏 map of Oak Park (Australia / South Australia), satellite view. Real streets and buildings location with labels, ruler, places sharing, search, locating, routing and weather forecast.

satellites.pro

 

[Dotta]

Summary by DM reporter Ms Karleigh Smith

This also covers material from earlier DM article which was behind paywall.

 

[Morequestionsthananswers]

Dbm

 

[BerylTutu]

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?!

 

[Morequestionsthananswers]

Bombshell claims from one of the key trackers on Gus Lamont case – as he reveals the private intelligence cops are acting on in new search - Cryptic Revelations

A pivotal member of a tracking team that combed through remote scrubland for missing boy Gus Lamont has revealed for the first time that police are now acting on his intelligence as the search intensifies. Jason O'Connell, from Mid North Wildlife Rescue South Australia, volunteered his services...

crypticrevelations.eatatsunset.net

 

[Morequestionsthananswers]

What makes you think this? One is cooperating and one isn't.

Not any more

 

[AmoryK]

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.

 

[SilentHill]

<modsnip: Quoted post was removed>

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.

 

[Ellery84]

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.

 

[AmoryK]

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?

 

[Ellery84]

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.

 

[AmoryK]

“I’m predicting if they are responsible for Gus’ disappearance there would be no commemoration or care shown. IMO”

Very sad if so @Ellery84

 

[jepop]

<modsnip>

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

 

[Warshawski]

I have been around guns for quite a while, both as shooter and observer on large properties in different states of Australia. I've never seen a shooter or a farmer use a silencer, but that's not to say it doesn't happen.

I can see the reason for it, if you're shooting at a mob of feral pests such as pigs, goats etc, a silencer might stop them from scattering immediately. You could eliminate more of them at once.

Silencers don’t actually ‘silence’ the shot though, it just lowers it so it’s not as ‘deafening’ . .. and possibly would lower the distance from which it could be heard. eg. from neighbouring property etc.

MOO