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

[Ruminations]

I think the video of this beautiful alive little boy on his balance bike, is to pull on the heartstrings/emotions of the grandparent (in my view Shannon) who is covering (in my view) for Jose. They are "pleading" with her to do the right thing.

I can't wrap my head around that theory.

Josie and Jess were reportedly together and Shannon was reportedly watching Gus and a baby on the cusp of infancy and toddlerhood. We have no details about what was reported to whom amongst one another at about 5:30- or where Josie and Jess were in their day. Wrapping up? Still hours of work? We don't know who texted whom what or when, although I imagine LE knows.

If this timeline (5:00 playing in sand; 5:30 missing while in the exclusive care of Shannon) is true and Shannon is completely innocent and ignorant of what happened, Josie and Jess each at a minimum have a good idea of who did something, about when, and the ability to give LE a perimeter for how far away Gus could have gotten.

I think that Shannon has to be completely ignorant and innocent, or quite - well- suspicious. And not something in between. Because if she is helping to cover up at all, without much guilt otherwise, I don't think she would put herself alone with the victim for so long. Too risky.

I think if Shannon is helping cover, she's in deep.

I really don't know, but one reason I suspect her a bit more is because Josie and Jess would have each been able to shrink the perimeter and it would have been easier to find Gus.

MOO

 

[Dotta]

I'm not sure
if any pleading/appeal will work with alleged perp if there was foul play.

This appeal may only work with some kind of witness
or a person who suspects something
but still is unwilling (for whatever reason)
to contact Police.

I don't understand
why it was not delivered in September and why photos and video weren't shown then,
at the very beginning???

What was the problem?
I understand the appeal is made solely by parents.
It is parents' right to appeal.
Did anybody hold them back then?

But what do I know??
Nothing.
And I honestly don't know what to think about all this.

JMO

 

[southaus]

I'm sorry for him with his little barefeet on that gravel.

Very normal here to have bare feet -

Especially in the heat as it would get hot and with there being a variety of snakes known to live in the environment.

it’s sunset, the ground will not be hot (especially light coloured gravel) and snakes are very unlikely to be an issue for a kid clattering around on a bike on a driveway.

I say with confidence as a kid that grew up in this environment and who’s raising them now, nothing to worry about or feel sorry about. It’s a sign of a healthy childhood IMO.

Some of the things that are ‘read into’ in this case seem to demonstrate more than anything a misunderstanding of the context of the environment and circumstances Gus went missing in. It is likely one reason police have been so strategic about what to release to the public, we seem to muddy the waters more often than not. MOO.

 

[BerylTutu]

Moo...being bare foot is normal in Australia for children and adults

Homegrown Aussie here can certainly confirm that being barefoot is a very normal thing for us!

 

[SouthAussie]

LE has been basically saying, "We have identified a grandparent as a suspect, but we won't tell you which one." I do not know enough about Australia to determine if the suspected grandparent knows they are the suspect, nor do I know the local laws and practices enough to know it means the suspect is suspected of doing a crime, or being a witness, etc.

Suspect is a pretty strong word here. Usually the police would say Person of Interest.

Like you, I am not sure if the police have advised one grandparent or the other that they are a suspect. They seem to have both been put on notice, and have both lawyered up.

I am guessing that the police think that there may be 'a suspect and a co-conspirator' type thing going on.

imo

 

[washysmum]

Moo...being bare foot is normal in Australia for children and adults

Yep, I had a bf who passed and at his funeral it was requested to go bare foot, my bf now goes barefoot to the shops.

 

[alicrocodile]

I can't wrap my head around that theory.

Josie and Jess were reportedly together and Shannon was reportedly watching Gus and a baby on the cusp of infancy and toddlerhood. We have no details about what was reported to whom amongst one another at about 5:30- or where Josie and Jess were in their day. Wrapping up? Still hours of work? We don't know who texted whom what or when, although I imagine LE knows.

If this timeline (5:00 playing in sand; 5:30 missing while in the exclusive care of Shannon) is true and Shannon is completely innocent and ignorant of what happened, Josie and Jess each at a minimum have a good idea of who did something, about when, and the ability to give LE a perimeter for how far away Gus could have gotten.

I think that Shannon has to be completely ignorant and innocent, or quite - well- suspicious. And not something in between. Because if she is helping to cover up at all, without much guilt otherwise, I don't think she would put herself alone with the victim for so long. Too risky.

I think if Shannon is helping cover, she's in deep.

I really don't know, but one reason I suspect her a bit more is because Josie and Jess would have each been able to shrink the perimeter and it would have been easier to find Gus.

MOO

Jess could've been covering for Josie re the timeline for innocent reasons.

my opinion is both grandparents know, and Jess first lied about the timeline because she was asked to by parents she trusted (or was controlled by)

 

[alicrocodile]

re the shoes, there's lots that seems really sus to me in this case but being barefoot is definitely not one of them. Ive seen people barefoot in supermarkets, my high school, pubs, walking down country roads. totally normal here

 

[SouthAussie]

IMO,
Yes, using the media can work well when used strategically by investigators.

No doubt today's news is strategic and hopefully will serve its purpose.

In this case, i suspect the police's use of the media has a target audience of one or two people. That's it. Quite simply, the news today hasn't come from journalists "investigating" a crime, it has been because they were approached and "asked" to publish a statement and photos. The so called "pressure" is being applied by investigators and the media is their tool.

That's the way I see it.
IMO

There may be more to it than a target audience of one or two people (the grandparents). Because surely Jess could pressure her parents privately.
I think that Jess and Josh's public statement may be seeking someone who may have seen someone at a place where it was unusual to see them, or at a time when it was unusual to see them there, or doing something that was unusual to see there (digging? moving fallen logs? something else?)


We know someone out there may have information. If someone knows what happened, we are pleading with that person—or anyone who may have seen or heard anything—to please come forward. Even the smallest detail could give us the answers we so desperately need.

https://www.police.sa.gov.au/sa-police-news-assets/front-page-news/gus-lamont-parents-appeal-for-information

 

[Athena Holmes]

I think the grandparents have been backed into a corner. There is nowhere for them to go. The police aren't going anywhere, are closing in, and life as they know it at Oak Park Station is surely over. It's only a matter of time now before the truth will be exposed. I think the parents' statement/plea at this time is strategic. I wouldn't be surprised if, and I hope she does, the co-conspiritor fesses up soon.

 

[Dotta]

re the shoes, there's lots that seems really sus to me in this case but being barefoot is definitely not one of them. Ive seen people barefoot in supermarkets, my high school, pubs, walking down country roads. totally normal here

And yet,
in first report describing the attire of missing Gus,
it was written he was wearing boots.

Quote:

"A blue T-shirt with a yellow Minion on the front, a grey sun hat, light-grey pants and boots."

From:

Gus Lamont’s parents appeal to public for information and say ‘every moment without him is unbearable’

Four-year-old’s parents say ‘even the smallest detail could give us the answers we so desperately need’

www.theguardian.com

I wonder,
was he really wearing these clothes?
I cannot be certain of anything any more.

JMO

 

[jepop]

Very normal here to have bare feet -

it’s sunset, the ground will not be hot (especially light coloured gravel) and snakes are very unlikely to be an issue for a kid clattering around on a bike on a driveway.

I say with confidencels a kid that grew up in this environment and who’s raising them now, nothing to worry about or feel sorry about. It’s a sign of a healthy childhood IMO.

Some of the things that are ‘read into’ in this case seem to demonstrate more than anything a misunderstanding of the context of the environment and circumstances Gus went missing in. It is likely one reason police have been so strategic about what to release to the public, we seem to muddy the waters more often than not. MOO.

Yea..I grew up until a tween happily barefoot on stony and sandy ground.If the ground was hot, we'd wear thongs. I've always had a steady stance and healthy feet.

Presumably that lovely photo of little Gus riding his trike barefoot and free was taken by his parents, given it was released with yesterday's statement.

If some posts are implying that allowing Gus to go barefoot was somehow inherently wrong or dodgy or whatever, that is a judgement on his mum and Dad, not the suspect/s anyway. Jmo

It is so, so sad that this little boy is gone. His folks must be hurting indescribably.

 

[SouthAussie]

Yea..I grew up until a tween happily barefoot on stony and sandy ground.If the ground was hot, we'd wear thongs. I've always had a steady stance and healthy feet.

Presumably that lovely photo of little Gus riding his trike barefoot and free was taken by his parents, given it was released with yesterday's statement.

If some posts are implying that allowing Gus to go barefoot was somehow inherently wrong or dodgy or whatever, that is a judgement on his mum and Dad, not the suspect/s anyway. Jmo

It is so, so sad that this little boy is gone. His folks must be hurting indescribably.

As well, if Gus was wearing thongs on his feet he would probably have been instructed to take them off to ride the balance bike. Thongs could be dangerous when on a balance bike.

imo

 

[Dotta]

I think the grandparents have been backed into a corner. There is nowhere for them to go. The police aren't going anywhere, are closing in, and life as they know it at Oak Park Station is surely over. It's only a matter of time now before the truth will be exposed. I think the parents' statement/plea at this time is strategic. I wouldn't be surprised if, and I hope she does, the co-conspiritor fesses up soon.

It all depends on evidence.
Was anything incriminating found,
(except illegal silencer, that is)??

The car was returned to the owner, no?
Any interesting traces???

Without a body and no evidence I'm not sure about being "backed into a corner".

Nearly 5 months passed
and IMO if there was any evidence of foul play,
it was surely disposed of.

And as for Gus,
looking at this vast terrain,
well.....one just feels pessimistic.
Samantha M. was never found as well.



JMO

 

[Bats]

There may be more to it than a target audience of one or two people (the grandparents). Because surely Jess could pressure her parents privately.
I think that Jess and Josh's public statement may be seeking someone who may have seen someone at a place where it was unusual to see them, or at a time when it was unusual to see them there, or doing something that was unusual to see there (digging? moving fallen logs? something else?)


We know someone out there may have information. If someone knows what happened, we are pleading with that person—or anyone who may have seen or heard anything—to please come forward. Even the smallest detail could give us the answers we so desperately need.

https://www.police.sa.gov.au/sa-police-news-assets/front-page-news/gus-lamont-parents-appeal-for-information

Yes, for sure. I totally agree it is being put out there for everyone to see.

Though, just my opinion, I think the real target is the grandparents. Using another case we know as an example, like when the police asked 60 minutes to present a photo and story on the missing elderly campers. We now know they were really just targeting the family and Greg Lynn (the suspect), even though they were also inviting anyone from the public to come forward with information.

JMO

 

[Athena Holmes]

It all depends on evidence.
Was anything incriminating found,
(except illegal silencer, that is)??

The car was returned to the owner, no?
Any interesting traces???

Without a body and no evidence I'm not sure about being "backed into a corner".

Nearly 5 months passed
and IMO if there was any evidence of foul play,
it was surely disposed of.

And as for Gus,
looking at this vast terrain,
well.....one just feels pessimistic.
Samantha M. was never found as well.



JMO

As heart wrenching as the case is, I feel optimistic.

 

[linge]

It all depends on evidence.
Was anything incriminating found,
(except illegal silencer, that is)??

The car was returned to the owner, no?
Any interesting traces???

Without a body and no evidence I'm not sure about being "backed into a corner".

Nearly 5 months passed
and IMO if there was any evidence of foul play,
it was surely disposed of.

And as for Gus,
looking at this vast terrain,
well.....one just feels pessimistic.
Samantha M. was never found as well.



JMO

We haven't heard anything from them about what evidence they may or may not have found, but IMO I wouldn't be surprised if they keep anything they might find a lot closer to the chest going forward. I think they'll give broad stroke overviews of searches being conducted so the public doesn't think they're not doing anything, and think of course they'll announce it if they find Gus, but think the nature of this investigation has fundamentally changed with the switch to investigating it as a major crime. IMO, they have been pretty transparent up until now, but there's likely a lot that they haven't shared even when the focus was on finding a lost little boy. Then the considerable info dump at the presser, but think that was particularly about showing their justification for the shift, making their case to the public for their conclusion that Gus didn't wander, why they're confident enough of that to even have a suspect. But we don't know exactly why they're focused on the suspect they have and not the other family members, or what the inconsistencies were that contradicted the original narrative for them, or why they seem so convinced Gus is dead instead of being spirited away and hidden by one of them.

But now that the case is about a crime and not a little boy who got lost, everything they share is going to be filtered through both how they think the suspect will react to it as well as potentially how it might impact a trial. They're going to want to keep the suspect in the dark around many of the things they're looking for so they can catch the suspect off guard, and maybe also try to provoke specific reactions by selectively releasing certain things. Ideally they'll also be keeping an open mind to potential other suspects or explanations as any more evidence they find may suggest.

And forensic analysis can take a long time, they might still be at it, might still have the items they initially seized or more to look at from subsequent searches, it's really only been a few weeks. And if they are correct and this was a major crime, there could be a lot of evidence left, it's difficult for people to erase every trace (of course depending on what actually happened), particularly when it wasn't some cold-blooded pre-meditated thing that they meticulously prepared for ahead of time. The long delay in getting to this point has probably made it harder, bought time to maybe hide Gus more securely and dispose of incriminating things...but then again we also don't know what they may have uncovered when they were quietly looking into this possibility early on, before this line of investigation became the main one and before the suspect was alerted that they weren't buying the 'Gus wandered off' story wholesale (again, whether true or not).

As always, my opinion only.

 

[katydid23]

It feels to me like “zero tolerance policing,” which was a strategy used by the strike force in the William Tyrrell case, in relation to the foster parents.

IMO

I predict the next step will be Task Force Horizon pulling Josie and Shannon into the Crime Commission, (or whatever body or mechanism South Australia has to target organised crime and get actual answers to questions).

That also happened to William Tyrrell’s foster parents, and they were both charged with lying to the NSW Crime Commission. Those charges were never proven.

Now that you mention this case, makes me wonder if they will put secret listening devices in the home and tap their phones?

I think they did that the foster parents, IIRC?

I agree with you that they will likely move this into the Crime Commission for the next step of the process.

 

[katydid23]

I can't wrap my head around that theory.

Josie and Jess were reportedly together and Shannon was reportedly watching Gus and a baby on the cusp of infancy and toddlerhood. We have no details about what was reported to whom amongst one another at about 5:30- or where Josie and Jess were in their day. Wrapping up? Still hours of work? We don't know who texted whom what or when, although I imagine LE knows.

If this timeline (5:00 playing in sand; 5:30 missing while in the exclusive care of Shannon) is true

The above sentence is key thing here----" IF the timeline is true..."

Is it though?

and Shannon is completely innocent and ignorant of what happened, Josie and Jess each at a minimum have a good idea of who did something, about when, and the ability to give LE a perimeter for how far away Gus could have gotten.

I think that Shannon has to be completely ignorant and innocent, or quite - well- suspicious. And not something in between. Because if she is helping to cover up at all, without much guilt otherwise, I don't think she would put herself alone with the victim for so long. Too risky.

I think if Shannon is helping cover, she's in deep.

I really don't know, but one reason I suspect her a bit more is because Josie and Jess would have each been able to shrink the perimeter and it would have been easier to find Gus.

MOO

Another possible scenario comes to mind, and I am leaning towards this as a possibility:

The night BEFORE the boy was reported missing, Jess and the baby went to sleep early.

Something bad happened that night. Maybe an accident but a potentially neglectful one. Or maybe Gus was being punished and things went sideways?

Anyhow, something very bad happened and maybe Josie had to take a late night run to dispose of all of the evidence and remains?

So very early the next morning, they wake Jess up and explain that there are breaks in the outer fences and they need to hurry and repair them before they lose some livestock.

Jess assumes Gus is still asleep so she goes with Josie to mend the fences, without seeing her beautiful boy that morning.

Shannon's job is to stay home with the baby and set the scene, for the eventual arrival of the first responders.

Shannon is reminded that if things go wrong, they will lose their youngest grandson and their only daughter. Shannon feels pressured to comply with the cover up.


I know, I know....Shannon is the obvious suspect because she was home alone with the kids that day. But I just cannot see her being that involved as to cause or witness his death, then dispose of him before they return, all while carrying around a one year old too.

It just does not fit for me. I could be wrong, obviously. But it is much easier for me to see a strict punishment going sideways the night before---and Josie having all night to clean things up, make the disposal, and have all day before authorities are called.

It gives Josie a perfect alibi---being out on the range with Gus's mum, and Grandmum Shannon being home with the boys.

Very few people would assume she would harm Gus, imo.

 

[Hexe]

I know, I know....Shannon is the obvious suspect because she was home alone with the kids that day. But I just cannot see her being that involved as to cause or witness his death, then dispose of him before they return, all while carrying around a one year old too.

Why? We know zilch about her.