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

[Kemug]

Whatever transpiŕes-, i dont see the grandmas being left in charge of Ronnie again.

 

[Ellery84]

At around 31 minute mark.

https://www.police.sa.gov.au/sa-police-news-assets/front-page-news/disappearance-of-gus-lamont-declared-a-major-crime

Thank you! I’m just interested as to, how can police know that when they say they don’t have a body, and they don’t have any physical evidence for example, his clothes or shoes, his DNA out in the bush or any footprints of his.

How can they be so sure?

 

[Bats]

Thank you! I’m just interested as to, how can police know that when they say they don’t have a body, and they don’t have any physical evidence for example, his clothes or shoes, his DNA out in the bush or any footprints of his.

How can they be so sure?

Yes, I'm curious about that too. Though, their wording to me suggests they are leaving the door slightly ajar for the possibility of him wandering off or being abducted still.

I think part of the answer comes from the fact that the investigators seem to be sure that the 3 adults that live at the property aren't colluding together.

Also, the lack of evidence that he wandered off. I expect they may use some probability here. For example, (not a real example),under normal circumstances when we use all of these techniques, there is an above 98% chance there would be evidence found of a person that has wandered off. Something like that...

In my opinion, it seems they must have some sort of incriminating evidence apart from the stories not being aligned. Though, possibly not foolproof evidence...yet.

MOO

 

[Ruminations]

Shannon could’ve had the kids in the car that afternoon and been checking sheep for all we know and Gus died elsewhere.
Jmo

If Gus died earlier that afternoon it would mean Shannon would’ve had to lie to police and Jess about what her and the children had been doing all afternoon. It would’ve been fabricated. This could be where inconsistencies in the timeline come from. Just speculation Imo

I believe Jess and Josie were tending sheep that afternoon but that doesn’t mean they were together the whole time. Josie could’ve had a reason ,or made up a reason , why she was going back to the house for an hour or so. IMO

If this was an innocent accident such as drowning, dog attack, hot car, trampoline etc there is no reason to cover that up. You would call for help. For this reason, it makes sense that what ever happened is appalling because it has been covered up ..Imo

Well, if Shannon had Gus elsewhere in the car, but with her, it doesn't exactly exonerate her that Josie may have snuck off.

I am wracking my brain for a motive.

I can not think of a reason a grandparent would want to kill a grandchild, when simply telling your daughter he has to go would suffice. Jess could have been told, move out with your kids, or send them to dad. The grandparents were not forced to care for them, the parents were.

Covering up any kind of accident also doesn't make sense, either on the part of the person who caused the accident or the person who knows who caused the accident but doesn't say. And, since LE has drawn a circle around the grandparents, it does not make sense for either of them not to tell Jess what happened (Gus ate poison? I thought he left the hot car but he fell asleep?) and instead hide the body and make up a story.

Attention doesn't jibe with the private behavior of the family; they show no signs of likening being the victim of losing a child for all to see.

A child is expensive, but is not the grandparents' bill, and if the money stressed them out, again they could not allow Gus to live there.

Would it have been stressful for him to start school? Would transportation be a chore/expense issue? IDK the outback parenting life, but if a school age child is hard, again, the grandparents could have bowed out of solving the problem.

I can't get to a motive.

MOO

 

[Ruminations]

Thank you! I’m just interested as to, how can police know that when they say they don’t have a body, and they don’t have any physical evidence for example, his clothes or shoes, his DNA out in the bush or any footprints of his.

How can they be so sure?

We can infer that they don't have the evidence to build the case they want to build, but we don't know what they know. There could be evidence of the existence or non existence for a time of Gus in the house. There could be evidence of a flurry of communication that was not explained. There could be evidence that people's phones were not where people reported they would be.

Also, absence of evidence of Gus in the sandpit, or him wandering off in any direction from it is extremely suspicious. I think the absence of evidence can eliminate the wandered off theory which only leaves the possibility that someone moved Gus, dead or alive, cleaning the trail behind them.

And, if someone moved Gus and took the time to clean the trail behind them, absent trafficking or custody- napping, Gus is probably dead. Custody napping unlikely because parents are pointedly not suspects per LE; and trafficking is, I suppose, possible but seems far less likely than murder.

OTOH, murder by the grandparents ALSO seems very unlikely.

MOO

 

[gerardo20]

Thank you! I’m just interested as to, how can police know that when they say they don’t have a body, and they don’t have any physical evidence for example, his clothes or shoes, his DNA out in the bush or any footprints of his.

How can they be so sure?

jmo imo moo omo

The police are saying what they choose to say. They are also using terms like "police THINK..." so they are still not claiming certainty. jmo imo moo omo

The only other possibility other than that Gus is dead, poor kid, is that he is abducted with the involvement of at least one family member. They have chosen not to mention that possibility ON THIS OCCASION, but at other times they have been more general, mentioning the involvement of a family member. jmo imo moo omo

Certainly mentioning death, deliberate or accidental, makes clear the seriousness of the situation for the suspect .... Gus is not just missing and someone is covering up. jmo imo moo omo

 

[gerardo20]

LE has said she is not a suspect which means they don't believe she knows what happened. IMO.

jmo imo moo omo
I disagree because there is a difference between suspect and person of interest.
A person may be of interest to the case because they may know something about what happened without being suspected of being involved. jmo imo moo omo

E.G. if someone was in the vicinity at the time of a crime, they may have witnessed something which will help the investigation, without actually realising what they saw was important, so they are not abetting by deliberately withholding info. jmo imo moo omo

jmo imo moo omo

 

[Morequestionsthananswers]

Well, if Shannon had Gus elsewhere in the car, but with her, it doesn't exactly exonerate her that Josie may have snuck off.

I am wracking my brain for a motive.

I can not think of a reason a grandparent would want to kill a grandchild, when simply telling your daughter he has to go would suffice. Jess could have been told, move out with your kids, or send them to dad. The grandparents were not forced to care for them, the parents were.

Covering up any kind of accident also doesn't make sense, either on the part of the person who caused the accident or the person who knows who caused the accident but doesn't say. And, since LE has drawn a circle around the grandparents, it does not make sense for either of them not to tell Jess what happened (Gus ate poison? I thought he left the hot car but he fell asleep?) and instead hide the body and make up a story.

Attention doesn't jibe with the private behavior of the family; they show no signs of likening being the victim of losing a child for all to see.

A child is expensive, but is not the grandparents' bill, and if the money stressed them out, again they could not allow Gus to live there.

Would it have been stressful for him to start school? Would transportation be a chore/expense issue? IDK the outback parenting life, but if a school age child is hard, again, the grandparents could have bowed out of solving the problem.

I can't get to a motive.

MOO

In my opinion it can only be to cover child abuse , theres no other reason.

 

[Ruminations]

In my opinion it can only be to cover child abuse , theres no other reason.

It is not impossible, obviously. But why would the grandparent(s) abuse?

The stress was on Jess, and should have been on Josh, although he may have managed to avoid the stress by putting an hour between himself and his sons. I just don't see the grandparents as being the ones stressed out to the point of murder. And, being that the body is gone and timelines are not clear, any "accident" from violence that was meant to punish but not kill had to be really bad.

But, I'm at a loss.

MOO

 

[Raina_the_observer]

Thank you! I’m just interested as to, how can police know that when they say they don’t have a body, and they don’t have any physical evidence for example, his clothes or shoes, his DNA out in the bush or any footprints of his.

How can they be so sure?

They are not sure, it is their opinion only, at this stage, IMO.

 

[katydid23]

Behind Paywall

Can somebody summarize?

"Powerful hidden message in Gus Lamont's parents' statement:

Their agony is clear
- but something else is being said here."

https://twitter.com/x/status/2027364909957185831

Powerful hidden message in Gus Lamont's parents' statement

After months covering the case, I can see that these new images, and the parents' carefully chosen words, reveal something far more significant than a simply a plea for public assistance.

www.dailymail.co.uk

"A family friend also revealed Joshua and Josie had a verbal altercation 48 hours after Gus disappeared, as volunteers around them scoured the saltbush and outbuildings at Oak Park.

In the months that followed, his devastated mother Jessica remained at Oak Park with her parents and one-year-old Ronnie.

But a source recently told the Mail that Jessica, 39, left the property days before the February 5 presser - a decision that, to me, suggests she may believe aligning with the father of her children is her best chance of getting answers."

 

[katydid23]

Where does it say in any source that police believe that Gus was killed?

It SEEMS like police are saying it was a possible crime.

They say he did not wander away and he was not abducted. So what's left?

They also say the grandmother's were telling inconsistent stories. And are no longer cooperating.

 

[katydid23]

Thank you! I’m just interested as to, how can police know that when they say they don’t have a body, and they don’t have any physical evidence for example, his clothes or shoes, his DNA out in the bush or any footprints of his.

How can they be so sure?

I think they are suspicious because of inconsistencies in the grandmother's stories and timeline.

And also one of them was uncooperative.

So if LE rules out abduction and there was no evidence that the child wandered off either. What's left?

 

[Morequestionsthananswers]

It SEEMS like police are saying it was a possible crime.

They say he did not wander away and he was not abducted. So what's left?

They also say the grandmother's were telling inconsistent stories. And are no longer cooperating.

That’s telling

 

[Ellery84]

If someone known to Gus killed him, then what was the motive? Police have openly said there is one suspect and that person is known to Gus and it’s not the parents Jess or Josh.
But what’s missing is motive.

Why?

All imo

I understand no charges have been laid with regards to Gus and his disappearance.

 

[bluestsocks]

That’s telling

I’m struggling with how telling the lack of cooperation is. Early on, there was plenty of cooperation. But cooperation tends to stop when charges are laid, even if unrelated, usually at a legal advocate’s recommendation. I’d like to know if the lack of cooperation began before the gun charges were brought or after. To me, those are pretty different things in terms of how suspicious it is.

 

[Morequestionsthananswers]

I’m struggling with how telling the lack of cooperation is. Early on, there was plenty of cooperation. But cooperation tends to stop when charges are laid, even if unrelated, usually at a legal advocate’s recommendation. I’d like to know if the lack of cooperation began before the gun charges were brought or after. To me, those are pretty different things in terms of how suspicious it is.

Inconsistencies and discrepancies in the timeline is telling. IMO
Lack of cooperation started with one person before the gun charge, possibly two.

 

[AmoryK]

If someone known to Gus killed him, then what was the motive? Police have openly said there is one suspect and that person is known to Gus and it’s not the parents Jess or Josh.
But what’s missing is motive.

Why?

All imo

I understand no charges have been laid with regards to Gus and his disappearance.

That’s why I’m tending towards it being an accidently death, either through gross negligence, eg drowning or leaving him unattended, or something going wrong, eg physical punishment that caused far more damage than planned.

There are a number of possibilities for accidental death. Because the alleged death was concealed, I’m thinking it was either because it was wholly avoidable (eg drowning unattended in a bath) or the person involved in the death was so wracked with guilt that they couldn’t deal with it and the idea of telling Jess, so they and the other grandparent decided saying that Gus had wandered off was kinder to everyone. MOO, indeed maybe after a while the grandparent involved in the alleged death could even start to block out the truth and believe the lie for their own mental and emotional well-being.

 

[Kemug]

Someone with a temper really lost it, IMO.

 

[Ellery84]

Someone with a temper really lost it, IMO.

I think that is possible. IMO