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

[SouthAussie]

RSBM

I wonder if investigators consider this a fact?

I think it is probable that Jess would not have been publicly and strongly cleared if it was found that she lied about what she and Josie were doing when Gus disappeared. Because if she had lied about one thing, what is to say that she had not lied about other things?
The police might have said something like "we do not think that Gus' parents were involved" instead of stressing that they are cleared.

To me, it seems that the timeline discrepancies must be something else. Something related to Shannon's story.


"I do want to stress, however, that Gus's parents are not suspects in his disappearance."

'Our lives have been shattered': Gus's parents release statement

The parents of missing four-year-old Gus Lamont have released a public statement, saying "every moment without him is unbearable".

www.abc.net.au

 

[linge]

RSBM

I wonder if investigators consider this a fact?

Same. From the outside of this investigation looking in, it's a bit frustrating not knowing which discrepancies/inconsistencies they're referring to. Could be small details that don't line up, could be massive holes in the timeline, anything from part of it to the whole thing might be fabricated.

Also though, just from following a lot of cases, a lot of people that police interview lie, for a lot of reasons, often 'innocent' ones. Think we can't assume that just because the other two adults at the station at the time aren't considered suspects, that doesn't mean they told the whole truth when it happened, or that police haven't caught them out in some lies. Even Jess. Think it might be an unsubstantiated assumption that everything has to have happened in a way that left her believing the timeline we were initially told just because she isn't a suspect; I think it's just as likely she could have just believed there were good, 'innocent' reasons to need to misrepresent some things. JMO.

 

[essareem]

The video below is edited by me, but only zooming and slowing down the video. Source video - Channel 10 news tiktok.

It looks different on my phone vs on my PC monitor, but to me, it looks like he has quite dark circles under his eyes. Unsure if this can be considered normal for a young child.

Unfortunately when I uploaded it, it defaulted to Youtube Shorts.

I tried uploading it to WS as a video, but it did not work.

Edit: Also helps if you choose the higher quality setting on YT.

 

[essareem]

I think it is probable that Jess would not have been publicly and strongly cleared if it was found that she lied about what she and Josie were doing when Gus disappeared. Because if she had lied about one thing, what is to say that she had not lied about other things?
The police might have said something like "we do not think that Gus' parents were involved" instead of stressing that they are cleared.

To me, it seems that the timeline discrepancies must be something else. Something related to Shannon's story.


"I do want to stress, however, that Gus's parents are not suspects in his disappearance."

'Our lives have been shattered': Gus's parents release statement

The parents of missing four-year-old Gus Lamont have released a public statement, saying "every moment without him is unbearable".

www.abc.net.au

It could relate to to any part of it.

Quoting the news article again from my recent post.

...a number of inconsistencies and discrepancies" with information "as it relates to timelines and the version of events provided to us by the family members.

Family members plural.
Timelines and the version of events.

Also note timelines plural.

Very cryptic, but thought provoking.

 

[Old Soul]

The video below is edited by me, but only zooming and slowing down the video. Source video - Channel 10 news tiktok.

It looks different on my phone vs on my PC monitor, but to me, it looks like he has quite dark circles under his eyes. Unsure if this can be considered normal for a young child.

Unfortunately when I uploaded it, it defaulted to Youtube Shorts.

I tried uploading it to WS as a video, but it did not work.

Edit: Also helps if you choose the higher quality setting on YT.

I noticed this too, his left eye looks quite dark.
I’m not sure if it is just shadow and quality of video though.

It is most noticeable in the Channel 7 video from 0:25 mark.

Clue in outback disappearance of Gus Lamont

A newly released video may hold a crucial detail to help find answers in what happened to the four-year-old.

7news.com.au

 

[alicrocodile]

I think it is probable that Jess would not have been publicly and strongly cleared if it was found that she lied about what she and Josie were doing when Gus disappeared. Because if she had lied about one thing, what is to say that she had not lied about other things?
The police might have said something like "we do not think that Gus' parents were involved" instead of stressing that they are cleared.

To me, it seems that the timeline discrepancies must be something else. Something related to Shannon's story.


"I do want to stress, however, that Gus's parents are not suspects in his disappearance."

'Our lives have been shattered': Gus's parents release statement

The parents of missing four-year-old Gus Lamont have released a public statement, saying "every moment without him is unbearable".

www.abc.net.au

I think they would clear her that strongly if she admitted she lied about the timeline because her parents told her to, else Josie might face prejudice or unwarranted scrutiny and that she assumed he would be found quickly enough for it not to matter and was only later reconsidering now that he still hadnt been found. If she willingly admitted that, seemed credible, scared/pressured by parents, etc and police were already suspicious of the grandparents, i could definitely see them emphatically clearing her. Especially as a young white woman. Whether they should or not is a different story, but SAPOL have done stranger things as you probably know.

 

[alicrocodile]

re dark circles, I noticed that too but weirdly I had that same thing (maybe worse) as a child and grew up not that far away. Allergies? Fair complexion? Idk the cause but I was the same and dont think its relevant

 

[linge]

I think it is probable that Jess would not have been publicly and strongly cleared if it was found that she lied about what she and Josie were doing when Gus disappeared. Because if she had lied about one thing, what is to say that she had not lied about other things?
The police might have said something like "we do not think that Gus' parents were involved" instead of stressing that they are cleared.

To me, it seems that the timeline discrepancies must be something else. Something related to Shannon's story.


"I do want to stress, however, that Gus's parents are not suspects in his disappearance."

'Our lives have been shattered': Gus's parents release statement

The parents of missing four-year-old Gus Lamont have released a public statement, saying "every moment without him is unbearable".

www.abc.net.au

IMO, police are used to having people lie to them, the key is in figuring out why they lied. If Jess had lied about something, it could easily be just a matter of not believing her parents would ever do anything to hurt Gus, believing that he did wander off, but realizing that something that happened that day would look bad to the police. So left it out, or fudged a few details, thinking it's going to protect her family from being wrongly blamed and keep the police from getting sidetracked chasing after a red herring instead of finding her lost son. Something where, the moment she began to have doubts about their innocence, or just under being questioned more intensively, she might have owned up to the truth. I don't think that would have inherently made her a suspect. Again, hypotheticals only.

 

[Athena Holmes]

The video below is edited by me, but only zooming and slowing down the video. Source video - Channel 10 news tiktok.

It looks different on my phone vs on my PC monitor, but to me, it looks like he has quite dark circles under his eyes. Unsure if this can be considered normal for a young child.

Unfortunately when I uploaded it, it defaulted to Youtube Shorts.

I tried uploading it to WS as a video, but it did not work.

Edit: Also helps if you choose the higher quality setting on YT.

Awww.. I don't see that just a beautiful little boy. Just the fact that he is riding a balance bike suggests to me that he is valued and cared for by his parent/s.

 

[essareem]

I noticed this too, his left eye looks quite dark.
I’m not sure if it is just shadow and quality of video though.

It is most noticeable in the Channel 7 video from 0:25 mark.

Clue in outback disappearance of Gus Lamont

A newly released video may hold a crucial detail to help find answers in what happened to the four-year-old.

7news.com.au

Yes, actually in that video it shows up even more. In the still photos of him, his eyes are not looking bad. Could there have been a deterioration?

Or perhaps just shadows/poor video quality.

 

[SouthAussie]

It could relate to to any part of it.

Quoting the news article again from my recent post.

...a number of inconsistencies and discrepancies" with information "as it relates to timelines and the version of events provided to us by the family members.

Family members plural.
Timelines and the version of events.

Also note timelines plural.

Very cryptic, but thought provoking.

With Jess having been publicly and strongly cleared, to me that seems to say that Jess' account of the day appears to be true to the police.

imo

 

[SouthAussie]

IMO, police are used to having people lie to them, the key is in figuring out why they lied. If Jess had lied about something, it could easily be just a matter of not believing her parents would ever do anything to hurt Gus, believing that he did wander off, but realizing that something that happened that day would look bad to the police. So left it out, or fudged a few details, thinking it's going to protect her family from being wrongly blamed and keep the police from getting sidetracked chasing after a red herring instead of finding her lost son. Something where, the moment she began to have doubts about their innocence, or just under being questioned more intensively, she might have owned up to the truth. I don't think that would have inherently made her a suspect. Again, hypotheticals only.

Of course, but then the police likely wouldn't feel so kind as to publicly and strongly clear Jess if they thought she was a liar who may have wasted months of police time by not telling the truth.

imo

 

[essareem]

I think they would clear her that strongly if she admitted she lied about the timeline because her parents told her to, else Josie might face prejudice or unwarranted scrutiny and that she assumed he would be found quickly enough for it not to matter and was only later reconsidering now that he still hadnt been found. If she willingly admitted that, seemed credible, scared/pressured by parents, etc and police were already suspicious of the grandparents, i could definitely see them emphatically clearing her. Especially as a young white woman. Whether they should or not is a different story, but SAPOL have done stranger things as you probably know.

I totally resonate with this possibility - it makes a lot of sense to me.

Branching off a little, but it also makes sense to me if Jess might have been a victim of abuse by one or both parents. Coercive control, DV, etc.

But your idea seems more likely / an easier explanation, to me.

 

[alicrocodile]

I totally resonate with this possibility - it makes a lot of sense to me.

Branching off a little, but it also makes sense to me if Jess might have been a victim of abuse by one or both parents. Coercive control, DV, etc.

But your idea seems more likely / an easier explanation, to me.

I've definitely considered that second possibility too, I think that would also make sense.

 

[SouthAussie]

I totally resonate with this possibility - it makes a lot of sense to me.

Branching off a little, but it also makes sense to me if Jess might have been a victim of abuse by one or both parents. Coercive control, DV, etc.

But your idea seems more likely / an easier explanation, to me.

Jess is an educated woman - with earnings potential - who had no need to return to the sheep station with her children if her own life there had been a mess. And then to leave her children in the care of a DV or coercive parent(s) while she went off to do station duties. Seems unlikely.

imo

 

[alicrocodile]

Jess is an educated woman - with earnings potential - who had no need to return to the sheep station with her children if her own life there had been a mess. And then to leave her children in the care of a DV or coercive parent(s) while she went off to do station duties. Seems unlikely.

imo

This discounts the way growing up in DV dynamics shape a persons entire worldview, self esteem, support system etc. You can be close to and even love people who have treated you badly, you could want to go back there for the other parent, you could assume any DV would continue in a pervious pattern and only be directed at certain people leading you to feel safe/believe your kids are safe, you could believe things have changed. you can even return as an educated woman knowing you could be the one to face violence if that dynamic has impacted you enough. That line of thinking is a bit too close to 'why didnt she leave' tbh

 

[linge]

Of course, but then the police likely wouldn't feel so kind as to publicly and strongly clear Jess if they thought she was a liar who may have wasted months of police time by not telling the truth.

imo

Think that would depend entirely on a lot of additional info about this case we don't have access to. I do think, for example, given how emphatic they have been that she isn't a suspect, there may be more supporting that than just the grandparents' word (which is now compromised) providing her an alibi. Maybe something like cell phone location data (if there's a signal).

Think too it's worth considering that as much as the evidence matters, police often also rely a lot on sizing people up. You can tell from the pressers that many of the officers who've been working this case are emotionally invested in it. If they came away from interactions convinced that Jess was genuinely emotionally distraught over this and was genuinely blindsided by the idea that Gus hadn't actually wandered off, that could go a long way with them.

 

[essareem]

Jess is an educated woman - with earnings potential - who had no need to return to the sheep station with her children if her own life there had been a mess. And then to leave her children in the care of a DV or coercive parent(s) while she went off to do station duties. Seems unlikely.

imo

Domestic violence, including coercive control, cuts across all socioeconomic levels.

Here's a great article:

"According to a recent survey 27% of university-educated women have experienced intimate partner violence."

Another (PDF):

Experiences of Coercive Control Among Australian Women (Australian Institute of Criminology, 2021)

This study examines the characteristics of violence and abuse reported by 1,023 Australian women who had recently experienced coercive control by their current or former partner.

Nine in 10 respondents had completed Year 12 or equivalent (88%), with half (48%) reporting that they had a university qualification.