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

 

[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.

 

[Total_C]

7NEWS calling a hat a “critical clue” is pure click farming

I’m going to say what apparently no one in mainstream media wants to say

7NEWS running “new detail spotted” and framing a hat as a “critical clue” is absolute f*****y

A hat is not a critical clue
A hat is not a breakthrough
A hat is not what you lead with in a Major Crime investigation where police have confirmed a suspect and openly signalled the timeline is not adding up

It’s lick farming dressed up as journalism
It’s content
It’s noise
And it keeps the public focused on the least important part of the story

If you are going to use the words critical and crucial, then do some actual journalism and ask the questions that matter, including directly to police spokespeople

What is the timeline as investigators currently understand it
Not the vague “last seen playing” line
The sequence of events
The key time windows
Who last saw him
When
Where
What happened next
When was he reported missing
When did police consider it something other than wandering

What inconsistency was discovered and when was it discovered
Police have alluded to discrepancies
So what is the discrepancy in general terms
A conflict between accounts
A time window that makes no sense
A story that changed
Something that does not match what police now know
If police are publicly signalling this, then ask them to explain the nature of it without compromising the case

When did police stop treating “wandered off” as plausible and what changed their mind
Because that is a massive shift and the public deserves to know what drove it

Was the suspect challenged on that inconsistency and is that the point cooperation stopped
Because from the outside, it reads like an inconsistency was uncovered, the person was pressed on it, and then they clammed up
If that is wrong, police can correct it
If it is broadly right, then that is the turning point of the case, not a hat

What specifically do police want from the public right now
Not “any information”
What time window
What location
What kind of sighting
What type of vehicle movement
What should someone be thinking back to

Instead we get “critical clue hat” headlines like we’re all idiots and can’t tell the difference between an accessory and an investigative development

If 7 wants to report, report
If they want to do PR packaging, fine, but don’t insult people by calling it crucial

Do the job
Ask the timeline questions
Ask about the inconsistency
Stop serving up nothing and acting like it’s something

 

[Ruminations]

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

Is it though?


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.

I don't know.

I just don't feel it with Josie. I don't get the impression she cared for the children as directly as Shannon, which gives her far fewer opportunities to get into some kind of power struggle with a preschooler. Also, she's the most expressive and direct.

But we really have very little information to go on.

I would really love to see what the inside of the house looked like. What clothing was left of Gus'? Was his sun hat and minion shirt missing? His boots? Was there evidence of his being inside that day? Eating anything? Were there dishes in the sink or on the drying board from his meals? Where does he usually sleep? In Jess' room? For this kind of information, I guess we have to wait until a trial, if there is one.

Where are his toys? It's too weird to see that big dirt pile without so much as a stick to carve pretend rivers with.

Did Gus usually lunch with Jess? FaceTime her? Talk on the phone? What was their communication that day?

MOO

 

[Ruminations]

It is hard to tell. They are "united in their grief" ... and "united in their search for answers".

I am not sure what that means (relationship-wise). If they were fully aligned, I would have expected "we grieve for Gus" and "we are searching for answers" - with no need to mention the united part.

Either they have heard the rumours, and want to emphasise that they are united/together.
Or they are not together, but they are on the same page as far as Gus is concerned.

I think that a major crisis is difficult for any couple to navigate through, but either way they are united for Gus.

imo

Adding the word 'United' where it should go without saying suggests to me that they are not United otherwise.

But it has nothing to do with anything, because per LE they are pointedly not suspects, so nosing into their relationship looking for motives would be unnecessary.

I can't imagine what this is like for them now. Heck, I'm united with them as far as Gus is concerned.

MOO

 

[Ruminations]

I think the boy died by a violent and criminal act by one grandparent and both grandparents have gone to such an extent to cover this up because there is so much at stake financially. The family is sitting on millions. I think it also possible that the boy's father was not deemed a suitable or good enough match for the Murray family's privately educated daughter (the Murray family on both sides going back at least one generation were held in high social esteem). Resentment towards the father may have been projected onto any offspring with their daughter, whom also presumably one day would stand to inherit the grandparent's considerable wealth (I understand ownership of Oak Park Station was transferred to Jose at some point). In the picture and video released Gus looks to me like a very loved little boy. Jess may have been staying with her parents more through necessity, after separating from her partner, than 100 percent through choice.

Usually, when the motive is an inheritance, it's the grandparent or rival sibling that goes missing.

By reports, Jess is not legally married. If it's true the grandparents don't like Josh, how does making Gus go away make him go away?

I can't form a cohesive motive from money or disliking the union between Jess and Josh for harming Gus.

MOO