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

[Kemug]

It will probably be a long time before they can comfortably let Gus out of their sight. He's probably walking by now.

 

[gerardo20]

I really hope that Jess, Josh and little Gus will become a strong, loving family unit again.

Gus has a little brother called Ronnie. I too hope they come through this stronger and more loving than ever.

 

[Kemug]

Oops, thanks to you dear friends who pointed out that in some recent posts I wrote "Gus" when I meant to put "Ronnie". Oops. Must be bedtime!

 

[JLZ]

I think we have to respect that police have ruled out that Gus simply wandered off or was abducted.
We have to respect that for whatever reason police have ruled out the parents being involved.
Who the suspect is of committing a major crime we don't know, but police alluded to it being one of the grandparents who is now probably the one not co-operating and IMO that is hindering the investigation.
It seems to me police are alleging one of the grandparents was responsible for the death or disposal of Gus to an unknown location.
It's now been about seven months and Jess and Josh deserve to know what happened to their little boy.
If it was at the hands of a grandparent then I think evil is definitely the word to describe that person and I too would be profoundly disgusted, revolted, and morally outraged.

Police earlier confirmed they had "all but ruled out" the possibility that Gus had simply wandered off.

Top cop 'certain' police will return to Gus' home as he hopes for 'breakthrough'

www.9news.com.au

So they have not ruled out wandering.
I don't remember them saying that they'd completely ruled out abduction either. If it's out there, could we have a link, please?

 

[FromGermany1]

There is a difference between identifying a suspect and alleging.

The police have not alleged anything against anyone yet, they have said they have a suspect. It seems to me that the suspect is one of the grandparents. The police are investigating with a suspect in mind and will allege if they find sufficient evidence. (I guess you could say there are alleged inconsistencies that have led to these suspicions, but that is still a long way from alleging one of the grandparents is involved in the disappearance/death of Gus.)

I agree it would be good for the parents to learn what happened to Gus, but at this stage the police have suspicions but have not alleged anything. It does not help Josh or Jess to jump from suspicion to allegation without sufficient substantial evidence, regardless of how much they deserve answers. jmo

The person, who became a suspect, was living at the station, when little Gus disappeared, and the parents were excluded as suspects. We think, now the grandparents are remaining the two, who are responsible, or at least one of them.
Was a completely different person, who also lived at the station at that particular time, kept from the public until today?

 

[Monkey2]

So they have not ruled out wandering.
I don't remember them saying that they'd completely ruled out abduction either. If it's out there, could we have a link, please?

"Detective Superintendent Fielke said detectives had also ruled out abduction given the property was only accessible via dirt roads and was "45 kilometres inland from the nearest main roadway".

Police are alleging a person known to Gus is a suspect in his disappearance.

Where is Gus? Six months on, more questions than answers remain

Six months to the day since four-year-old Gus Lamont was reported missing from a vast outback station, many more questions than answers remain.

www.abc.net.au

@FromGermany1 there's been no suggestion any other adults apart from the grandparents and Jess were on the property at the time.

 

[wvmoonangel]

Does anyone know yet who this suspect is?
"Police said a person who lives on the property has been identified as a suspect but confirmed the boy's parents were not under investigation".

Gus Lamont: Suspect identified in disappearance of four-year-old in Australian outback

Gus Lamont was last seen playing outside his home on a remote sheep station on 27 September.

www.bbc.com

 

[Dotta]

Any news?

Are there searches to find the little boy?

On the property/adjoining farm and in the nearby Nature Reserve/Park?

What about native searchers?

How come a child vanished and there are no searches any more?

Not to mention
that those whose DUTY was to care for a little 4-year-old boy
are not charged with negligence???

Gus was among FAMILY and at home,
which should be the safest place for a child,
and yet,
he disappeared without a trace.



JMO

 

[Ruminations]

I think we have to respect that police have ruled out that Gus simply wandered off or was abducted.
We have to respect that for whatever reason police have ruled out the parents being involved.
Who the suspect is of committing a major crime we don't know, but police alluded to it being one of the grandparents who is now probably the one not co-operating and IMO that is hindering the investigation.
It seems to me police are alleging one of the grandparents was responsible for the death or disposal of Gus to an unknown location.
It's now been about seven months and Jess and Josh deserve to know what happened to their little boy.
If it was at the hands of a grandparent then I think evil is definitely the word to describe that person and I too would be profoundly disgusted, revolted, and morally outraged.

I agree that it is disrespectful to jump ahead of LE.

But I wouldn't say that they have ruled out anyone except strangers in an abduction scenario. They also ruled out Gus' wandering off.

They said that someone, and implied it was either Shannon or Josie, is a suspect of a major crime. They said that two someones, implying Shannon and Josie, are not cooperating with LE in that they do not speak directly to LE at this time, but speak only through lawyers. They haven't cleared anyone. Failing to identify someone as a suspect is not the same as clearing them.

MOO

 

[BreakingNews]

It will probably be a long time before they can comfortably let Gus out of their sight. He's probably walking by now.

Ronnie

 

[katydid23]

Does anyone know yet who this suspect is?
"Police said a person who lives on the property has been identified as a suspect but confirmed the boy's parents were not under investigation".

Gus Lamont: Suspect identified in disappearance of four-year-old in Australian outback

Gus Lamont was last seen playing outside his home on a remote sheep station on 27 September.

www.bbc.com

LE seems to have narrowed it down to either Shannon or Josie, as the prime suspect.

And they kind of hint that it might be Josie as they say one is more cooperative than the other.

 

[AmoryK]

LE seems to have narrowed it down to either Shannon or Josie, as the prime suspect.

And they kind of hint that it might be Josie as they say one is more cooperative than the other.

Would the one who wasn’t co-operating necessarily be the suspect? Perhaps somebody could refuse to cooperate if they thought things they said could incriminate their spouse? Or maybe there are two people involved: one the main actor, and the second the helper?

I still don’t think we can say for sure who the suspect is.

 

[Ruminations]

Would the one who wasn’t co-operating necessarily be the suspect? Perhaps somebody could refuse to cooperate if they thought things they said could incriminate their spouse? Or maybe there are two people involved: one the main actor, and the second the helper?

I still don’t think we can say for sure who the suspect is.

I agree we don't know who the suspect is.

While I think LE did say that the first person who was a suspect was also the first person who started speaking through an attorney, I don't think we know who that person is.

Shannon attorney came out first to say Shannon was cooperating. But the attorney's definition of cooperation was not the same as LE's.

To me, since her attorney was quickly on the job to message for her, that could be evidence she secured an attorney first.

In the end, I don't think it matters much, who was considered a suspect first. I think LE took advantage of the fact that a family member, either grandparent, had an attorney as an opportunity to say there has been a change without giving up any evidence that they find significant, and attempt to get the grandparents to suspect each other of crimes and/or disclosures to LE.

Later, LE said two people withdrew cooperation by their definition, and hence they now are both suspects.

Telling someone to communicate through an attorney is hardly the kind of evidence that will get a search warrant, for example. So, hopefully LE has much more.

MOO

 

[BreakingNews]

I found it interesting to listen to police interview once again. Seems like the sandpit thing did not happen.

 

[gerardo20]

Seems like the sandpit thing did not happen.

It would be helpful if you could perhaps kindly post a timestamp for when this is indicated. Thank you.

 

[jepop]

I found it interesting to listen to police interview once again. Seems like the sandpit thing did not happen.

You mean the Feb 4th press conference? Whereabouts in that presser did Supt. Fielke specifically mention or imply that police have concluded Gus did not play outside in the sand/dirt pile/mound at some point that day and/or other days/times when he was staying at Oak Park (I'm guessing that's what you mean by the sand pit thing)?

Bringing forward transcript of the presser ( thankyou @linge).

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

When Fielke is talking about how police came to discount abduction, he references the near impossibility of someone being able to surveil and time a planned kidnapping because there was no specific pattern to Gus playing outside, but he doesn't say anything about the sand mound here or elaborate further about Gus playing outside. Moo he is talking about a lack of regimented play pattern in the context of discounting abduction, not that Gus never played outside in the sand when at Oak Park ( the " sand pit thing"?)

Relevant transcript:

"The timing of being in the area when Gus was playing outside would need to be impeccable. If Gus has been abducted it is absolutely fortuitous. There is no, um, pattern of Gus playing outside at Oak Park Station. So for someone to, um, start to, um, get a dossier together on movements and time of the day, et cetera, um, is - we are very confident is very, very unlikely. So the opportunity for anybody, um, to abduct Gus is extremely low, uh, with what I've just explained about the remoteness of the property and with the work that Task Force Horizon investigators have done around, uh, people in the area at the time."

On the time line in general for 27 Sept 2025, I couldn't find anything in that presser where Fielke elaborates upon the inconsistencies uncovered after revièw of family members' statements. So Imo there's nothing specific revealed about the sand mound and Gus' propensity back then to play in the sand outside. Infact Fielke makes a point of saying he is not going to give out specifics because the investigation is ongoing through the major crimes unit.

Jmo

 

[gerardo20]

Thanks for that.
So no clear pattern to Gus's play (according to family I guess)
and one instance of Gus playing in dirt pile/'sandpit' before disappearing according to Shannon. So LE has not specifically contradicted Shannon's assertion of Gus playing there before disappearing. moo

 

[jepop]

Police earlier confirmed they had "all but ruled out" the possibility that Gus had simply wandered off.

Top cop 'certain' police will return to Gus' home as he hopes for 'breakthrough'

www.9news.com.au

So they have not ruled out wandering.
I don't remember them saying that they'd completely ruled out abduction either. If it's out there, could we have a link, please?

RBBM for focus. Re the wandering and lost theory, my take is that Supt. Fielke did leave that door slightly ajar by virtue of his carefully chosen language at the Feb 4th presser. To my mind he appeared to be deliberately covering all bases, 'just in case'. ( See transcript excerpt below).

I think (jmo) back in Feb at least, major crimes were working primarily off likelihood of scenarios via elimination rather than any substantial 'stand alone' 'pro-active' evidence ( inconsistencies discovered in review of family statements notwithstanding) that could lead to the level of suspicion necessary to arrest the unnamed suspect, at that time.

So... and this is just my interpretation of Fielke's statements,... although investigators in Feb were now very confident Gus did not just wander and succumb to the elements, remaining unlocated (due to the human factor during foot searches), it was still deemed necessary to qualify that certainty publicly; .Moo I believe Fielke gave the media to understand that SAPOL were still open to any possible new evidence that might indicate Gus could be within that 5.5km foot searched radius of the homestead.

Relevant section of transcript is bolded. I've tried to contextualise by adding paragraph preceding.

"So, what's the result of all of this? The ground searches and the aerial searches with the images that you've seen, um, have failed to locate Gus or any items belonging to Gus. At this time, despite all of the combined search efforts, we have found no evidence, physical or otherwise, to suggest that Gus has merely wandered off from the home park - from the Oak Park homestead. However, if we do get new information that does come to hand, um, I'm not going to discount that further searching will be done. But you can see from the, uh, level of searching that has been undertaken, um, we have a high level of confidence that he hasn't wandered off."
Full transcript here:

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

Feb 8, 2026

So because the SAPOL presser contained so much information but also isn't really convenient to reference, I made a transcript. It's as verbatim as I could get it, down to the ums and uhs, although the device I was listening to it on didn't have the best audio. Anything that I wasn't certain on got marked with a [ph], [inaudible], or [indecipherable]. The people asking questions off microphone get the murkiest at a few points. If anyone wants to take a crack at filling in the blanks (looking at you Australians particularly), I'd be happy to edit it to include whatever you were able to make out.

I've also...

• linge

• 
• 
• 

* Re abduction, it's just my personal impression from the Fielke presser and the sections where he deals with that theory, that SAPOL are extremely confident Gus wasn't taken, more so than they are in the theory that he didn't wander and could not have been missed during the foot searches and inner radius aerial searches. JMO.

 

[Morequestionsthananswers]

Would the one who wasn’t co-operating necessarily be the suspect? Perhaps somebody could refuse to cooperate if they thought things they said could incriminate their spouse? Or maybe there are two people involved: one the main actor, and the second the helper?

I still don’t think we can say for sure who the suspect is.

I don’t know for sure who the suspect is which sucks.

 

[Ruminations]

Overall, LE has not even said if the inconsistencies they found were of one person changing the story or contradicting herself in the narrative, or if the inconsistencies were that different individuals' narratives contradicted each other, while each of them remained consistent.

Relistening to the press conference and the possibility of abduction, I think the point was that it could not have been done in without the family knowing. The family would have had to known of all vehicles coming and going.

I wonder if bordering stations would have had to have been driven by to get to Gus' home, and if they would certainly know of each vehicle passing. I would think, indoors one might not see/hear all dust and vehicle noise. Especially if windows were closed, sport games were on, occupants of a home were not on the side of the house that faces the potential dust cloud, etc. Do dogs bark and alert for every vehicle, or just alert for the interesting ones, such as when they recognize it and it's someone they want to welcome home, or it's someone who gets to a certain radius of the homestead?

LE says they searched every building. They searched the nearby dams including draining one. They are confident he isn't there.

LE says that there were no foreign tire tracks, but I wonder how they can be sure. Certainly, they could have destroyed that with their own vehicles? I can't imagine their first thought was, check for tire tracks before driving on the private roads. (But if it was their first thought, smart thinking! Imagine if they photographed tracks before driving on them?)

I wonder how LE picked the one motorcycle and one vehicle they took, and what they think they might find forensically. Evidence of Gus in a vehicle owned by a family member wouldn't be suspicious, would it? There must be so many vehicles on the station. The family knows which one LE chose to take. I wonder what they think of that.

MOO