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

[Ruminations]

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.

We don't know who took that video on his balance bike, or snapped that photo in the car.

We don't know what caused the family to decline to release them immediately.

MOO

 

[Athena Holmes]

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

What I was saying was that one or both of the grandparents may have resented Josh - and that resentment may have been projected onto any of Josh's offspring with their daughter, who presumably would one day stand to inherit the property (regardless of Josh and Jess' marital status). It's just another theory which is not necessarily what I think happened. The boy may have been resented by one (or both) of the grandparents because of resentment towards the father.

What I actually think probably happened was that the boy was abused by one of the grandparents and this was covered up.

 

[Ruminations]

What I was saying was that one or both of the grandparents may have resented Josh - and that resentment may have been projected onto any of Josh's offspring with their daughter, who presumably would one day stand to inherit the property (regardless of Josh and Jess' marital status). It's just another theory which is not necessarily what I think happened. The boy may have been resented by one (or both) of the grandparents because of resentment towards the father.

What I actually think probably happened was that the boy was abused by one of the grandparents and this was covered up.

I guess we just have to wait for more info.

I'd pay a dollar to see the inside of that house the evening LE came.

MOO

 

[linge]

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

It could be that, or just something they added in light of the conflicting media coverage about the status of their relationship (and even if they've been together up until this happened, the pain and trauma of losing a child tears apart many relationships).

JMO, but I'm leaning towards it being part of a message within the message to the grandparents. We've heard that the rift between Josh and the elder Murrays deepened in the aftermath of Gus's disappearance, the whole 'things were said that can't be unsaid' thing. This could be a statement of being a 'team,' picking a 'side'...on the side against the 'non-cooperative' suspect, pressuring the other grandparent to make a choice between daughter (and transparency and aiding the investigation) or partner (and silence and obfuscation). That Jess isn't standing alone and can't easily be brought back into the fold, or controlled.

I guess just to emphasize the context, this is the first time either parent has made a statement. Gus's mother and father have both been silent until now, completely as far as anything public-facing is concerned. Was that their idea? Or is this breaking away from the wishes of the grandparents on how to 'handle' this? Again, JMO, but it feels like a break to me.

 

[Kemug]

Why on earfh would the grandparents resent Gus? Surely they would be so happy to have an heir to the property, and then 2?

 

[Athena Holmes]

Why on earfh would the grandparents resent Gus? Surely they would be so happy to have an heir to the property, and then 2?

Well as one of them has likely killed him I think it's a fair point.

 

[linge]

Why on earfh would the grandparents resent Gus? Surely they would be so happy to have an heir to the property, and then 2?

If it ties them for the rest of their lives to a man they don't like, don't want to be with their daughter, and don't want to have any claim on the property in the future, I can kind of see it. Grudges can be weird and petty and still turn deadly if held by the wrong person.

I don't see that being a murder motive in this situation exactly (particularly because they have two sons), but it is the kind of resentment that can boil over into someone being rougher with a fragile child, maybe one who looks a bit like the father, in a moment of anger than they would be without that resentment.

Just conjecture, speculation, opinion.

 

[katydid23]

Why? We know zilch about her.

I know. But she looks very frail. I can't see her moving and disposing of a body, while also caring for a 1 yr old. But who knows?

Also, I have not seen her being angry or aggressive like Josie appeared to be in that one incident. A hot temper is not a good mix when caring for 2 little boys, who can be a handful. imo

 

[katydid23]

Your level-headed approach to this case is seriously refreshing. Many people flatly refuse to admit that Shannon is, logically speaking, more likely to be the suspect based on all available information released through official channels (SAPOL).

[mod snip: characterizes other members’ motives rather than addressing the topic itself]

SAPOL does not seem to be validating or confirming the timeline and scenario that was offered by the grandmothers.

In fact, SAPOL now seems to be rejecting that scenario and timeline, imo.

 

[Lemony]

I’m not quite sure how the hat Gus was wearing would be crucial to the public helping solve this case?

Has it ever been reported if grandma Shannon (or anyone else) took Gus into a public place, had visitors or visited others during the day he went missing?

I’m quite perplexed by the idea that members of the public can help.
Maybe someone saw the hat in the house, in a vehicle or being worn by someone else after Gus went missing???
It does look to be an adult or older child sized hat IMO.

I think it depends on whether Ch. 7 is creating their own story or if there is a background push from police to get this out there.

This could be an investigative strategy, where the police are highlighting the hat as a way of applying subtle pressure to someone who knows more about its whereabouts than they’ve said. Focus and scrutiny on the hat may stress their suspect or anyone that knows something more about the hat.

It’s possible Gus wasn’t wearing the hat when he disappeared and it was disposed of later. Perhaps the hat was seen or found in an unexpected place. It could prompt a witness to come forward.

 

[sunspun]

Why do you think parents release statement & more photos of Gus now … ??is it to prompt tips about the case ? Can’t help thinking that police might not have any leads

Maybe it's just to honor Gus, now that they know he is gone for sure. Just a way to keep memory alive, since that's all they have of him now. JMO

 

[Dotta]

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

I noticed it too - immediately.
I fact,
in all photos and the video.
Children's bruised eyes can be the symptom of anemia, as very pale skin.
The boy looks fragile.

I still think
it might have been a fatal accident
(a fall or overmedication as I mentioned before).
And cover up in panic - why?
I have no idea,
but people can be unpredictable when in distress and shock.

Or even
the boy could have actually wandered off in the house or the property (while unsupervised)
and is stuck in a place nobody could ever imagine.

But honestly folks
I don't know what to think really

The weirdness and secrecy of this family is baffling.

But then,
there are many eccentric people in this world,
with quirky, strange behavioral traits.

JMO

 

[katydid23]

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.

I don't know. Maybe I've seen more examples of very strict old school relatives, who don't engage in the daily care of the young children, BUT ARE HAPPY TO STEP IN AND PUNISH THEM FOR ANY PERCEIVED TRANSGRESSIONS...I actually saw that with my relatives that lived on ranches and large farms.

To be fair, they believed it was necessary in order to keep everyone safe. My cousins drove tractors and farm vehicles by age 10. They worked around large livestock and dangerous farm equipment. No room for playing around foolishly.

The grandfathers and uncles on the farms believed in ORDER and OBEDIENCE---no questions asked, just total obedience.

It was hard when my brothers and I came for our summer visits because we were not used to that kind of restraint. We grew up with 'Dr Spock' type of parents who believed in coddling their children and prioritising their needs .

My cousins had some very strict rules and met with quick consequences. My older male cousin had to go pick the switches from the woods for grandfather to use to beat his bare back. Other times my cousins had to go move The hay bales around, for no reason, just for punishment.

I am not saying these station grandmothers were like that, just saying that life on the station seems similar to life on my uncles dairy farm.
Lots of tough schedules, hard physical work and lots of discipline and conformity required.

From looking at the station, it seemed to me like Gus was living under similar conditions. I did not see a happy, toy filled children's yard. When they told the authorities where Gus was last seen, they were fine just saying he was playing alone in a pile of dirt. That seemed normal to them.

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?

We cannot trust any of the above info though. In the Dylan Redwine case, when the 11 yr old was murdered by his father, there were breakfast dishes in the sink that were allegedly from Dylan, and messages sent to his cell, from Dad, pretending to be on his way home---when in actuality Dylan was already dead and disposed of by then.

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.

I don't know if he had a lot of toys there.

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

MOO

I'd like to know all of the above too.

 

[Dotta]

https://twitter.com/x/status/2026867719572799927

"Police confirmed
that the wide-brimmed grey hat with a black band that Gus was wearing in the new video
is one of the items they are hoping to find
as their widespread search for the boy prepares to enter its sixth month on Friday.

It's understood that Gus was wearing the same hat
when he disappeared while playing at his grandparents' property on September 27.

There is no further update on the investigation."

 

[essareem]

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

But, perhaps the police are hoping someone recognises the hat, in the possibility that it may turn up somewhere other than Oak Park Station. Placing this hat in the public eye might then be beneficial, in such a situation.

Agree with your other points, though.

 

[hoodunnit]

I think little Gus looks awfully sad in that video

 

[SouthAussie]

Well as one of them has likely killed him I think it's a fair point.

Detective Superintendent Darren Fielke said Gus may have been killed “deliberately or accidentally”.

The 10 Gus Lamont questions that are still unanswered

South Australia Police’s bombshell announcement that investigators suspect Gus Lamont was killed – either deliberately or accidentally – by someone close to him was extraordinary and has created more questions.

thenightly.com.au

 

[_sleuthdog_]

I think it depends on whether Ch. 7 is creating their own story or if there is a background push from police to get this out there.

This could be an investigative strategy, where the police are highlighting the hat as a way of applying subtle pressure to someone who knows more about its whereabouts than they’ve said. Focus and scrutiny on the hat may stress their suspect or anyone that knows something more about the hat.

It’s possible Gus wasn’t wearing the hat when he disappeared and it was disposed of later. Perhaps the hat was seen or found in an unexpected place. It could prompt a witness to come forward.

https://twitter.com/x/status/2026867719572799927

"Police confirmed
that the wide-brimmed grey hat with a black band that Gus was wearing in the new video
is one of the items they are hoping to find
as their widespread search for the boy prepares to enter its sixth month on Friday.

It's understood that Gus was wearing the same hat
when he disappeared while playing at his grandparents' property on September 27.

There is no further update on the investigation."

While I thought the 7 update about the hat was a little bit silly at first, now that we are seeing a second report from DM about the hat, that little detail of the video is making some sense

"Police confirmed to Daily Mail that the wide-brimmed grey hat with a black band that Gus was wearing in the new video is one of the items they are hoping to find as their widespread search for the boy prepares to enter its sixth month on Friday."

 

[SouthAussie]

I think little Gus looks awfully sad in that video

It takes a lot of concentration to ride a balance bike ... steering, balancing, and watching where they are going - all at the same time.
The 4 year old in my family does not ride as well as that. But has a look of concentration when practising on the balance bike.

imo

 

[jepop]

My opinion. I don't think there's a basis in the facts of this case to the speculation I'm reading that Gus' mum lied to police from the get go...because it is assumed she was a victim of dv, coercive control and/or abuse...and that Gus was therefore probably abused by one or both of the GPS...and apparently there's your motive for a murder and cover up? Speculation based off prior speculations, based off an initial assumption. My opinion only.

On top of that, IMO this sort of baseless-in-known-fact speculation implies Gus' mum allowed abuse of her child (turned a blind eye owing to her own speculated (!) experiences,) which I find pretty non victim friendly...this poor woman who now has to contend with social media parsing of the video for bruises on Gus she and JL just released to try and help the current investigation. IMO so sad.

AFAIA, for the speculation that branches out from the premise that JL hates JM or vice versa or whatever and therefore motive etc..is that premise based on the apparent comments of a " friend" second hand in a DM article? Ditto the mysterious line by the friend '"things were said that can't be unsaid" or something? Could posters please link to these sources again when referring to them, incase other readers on the thread wish to assess the value of the source material.

Btw, a major crime or major indictable offence includes more charges/crimes than murder, just in case anyone was confused about that. It can be any offence that is not a minor indictable offence. It includes the various manslaughter charges and more. In the interests of keeping things factual during discussion. Jmo

Major Indictable Offences

lawhandbook.sa.gov.au

From the above you can link to the relevant legislation for more info on the range of major indictable offences

Are you charged with a Major Indictable Offence? - Williams Legal

Williams Barristers can help you with major indictable offences that are generally serious crimes and will ultimately be heard in the District or Supreme Court.

www.williamslegal.com.au

ETA, corrected initials of family