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

[Ruminations]

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

Or if LE was sincere. It does appear some crime occurred, but from what I know, there is no clear indication of who did what. I don't quite believe that LE found "withdrawing cooperation" suspicious at the point where the same details probably had been rehashed again and again.

The suspicious thing would have been giving an unlikely story, delaying calling LE, not finding toys, food, laundry, and general evidence of Gus at 5:00 and earlier. It would be very suspicious if there were little evidence of hours of searching, such as shed doors seeming to have been left shut for months, or clean, indoor clothes. Getting an attorney days later is not suspicious- it's not like the family called the attorney before LE.

I feel like police just used an excuse to say we have a suspect in public, just to watch what the families reaction would be. I think it's possible they claimed to identify a suspect to help themselves identify a suspect.

I wonder who called LE first regarding Gus being missing and if it seemed to be a committee project to call? Were adults also searching in the background while one called, or were they all focused on the call?

MOO

 

[BreakingNews]

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

It is in the latest presser posted several times above. It's worth listening to so you know where things stand

 

[BreakingNews]

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

Innocence until proven guilty. In Australia you are not required to say anything except your name and address. That does not automatically make you a suspect.

 

[AmoryK]

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.

Do we know how many vehicles they have? Could they just have one plus the motorbike? I assumed (MOO) that the two vehicles taken might have been in use by Jess and Josie on the day of Gus’s disappearance. I also assumed they’d search them for blood and use cadaver dogs too, and even perhaps damage due to an accident. They could also possibly examine them for plant and earth residues which might suggest areas for LE to search.

 

[Morequestionsthananswers]

It’s so disappointing that Gus hasn’t been found .
The vehicle and motorbike were taken for forensic testing ages after Gus went missing so how’s that going to help?
Apparently police were looking at all possibilities in the early days but did they take the family in for questioning soon after Gus disappeared ?

 

[LifeIsAMystery]

No. All the reports stated it was Sharon (also described as a grandmother) that stayed with children, while Josie (also described as a grandparent) was out on the pastures. If you know any stating otherwise I will be grateful for a link.

MOO

That is the STORY the family gave. It may be a complete fabrication.

 

[packetgravy]

Perhaps somebody could refuse to cooperate if they thought things they said could incriminate their spouse?

Bingo.

 

[Hexe]

That is the STORY the family gave. It may be a complete fabrication.

As far as I know nobody debunked that story yet.

 

[gerardo20]

No. All the reports stated it was Sharon (also described as a grandmother) that stayed with children, while Josie (also described as a grandparent) was out on the pastures. If you know any stating otherwise I will be grateful for a link.

That is the STORY the family gave. It may be a complete fabrication.

As far as I know nobody debunked that story yet.

We know the police believe they have found discrepancies between what the suspect has said and others evidence.

At this stage, regardless of how many times it is repeated in other reports, it remains the STORY supplied by those whom LE have described as relatives who are not providing the level of cooperation that would be expected from relatives of a little boy who has dissappeared.

Jess was supposedly with Josie and is not a suspect, so it would be interesting to know exactly what account Jess gave, and what Shannon and what Josie said about who was where and when ....I don't think we will get these separate versions, and any discrepancies, unless there's enough evidence and it goes to trial.

jmo

 

[FromGermany1]

Or if LE was sincere. It does appear some crime occurred, but from what I know, there is no clear indication of who did what. I don't quite believe that LE found "withdrawing cooperation" suspicious at the point where the same details probably had been rehashed again and again.

The suspicious thing would have been giving an unlikely story, delaying calling LE, not finding toys, food, laundry, and general evidence of Gus at 5:00 and earlier. It would be very suspicious if there were little evidence of hours of searching, such as shed doors seeming to have been left shut for months, or clean, indoor clothes. Getting an attorney days later is not suspicious- it's not like the family called the attorney before LE.

I feel like police just used an excuse to say we have a suspect in public, just to watch what the families reaction would be. I think it's possible they claimed to identify a suspect to help themselves identify a suspect.

I wonder who called LE first regarding Gus being missing and if it seemed to be a committee project to call? Were adults also searching in the background while one called, or were they all focused on the call?

MOO

bbm
It would be interesting to know, if one of the 3 relatives didn't want the police to be involved.

 

[FromGermany1]

As far as I know nobody debunked that story yet.

Who should that be, if only 3 relatives were present in the mid of nowhere?

Did little Gus disappear on this day at this time, because nobody except the relatives were present? Were other people present beforehand?

 

[Hexe]

We know the police believe they have found discrepancies between what the suspect has said and others evidence.

We don't know which part of the story these discrepancies were in and what they were about. What we know is that Jess is not the suspect, so if she said she went out to the pastures with Josie, it cannot be lie. Now, there might have been the moment when they were not together on these pastures, as we do not know the details of their day. As for who left and who stayed in the homestead, I think we can believe Jess, otherwise she would be deemed a suspect too.

 

[Ruminations]

As far as I know nobody debunked that story yet.

If a person knew their spouse committed a

We know the police believe they have found discrepancies between what the suspect has said and others evidence.

At this stage, regardless of how many times it is repeated in other reports, it remains the STORY supplied by those whom LE have described as relatives who are not providing the level of cooperation that would be expected from relatives of a little boy who has dissappeared.

Jess was supposedly with Josie and is not a suspect, so it would be interesting to know exactly what account Jess gave, and what Shannon and what Josie said about who was where and when ....I don't think we will get these separate versions, and any discrepancies, unless there's enough evidence and it goes to trial.

jmo

I don't think we know that the suspect gave a narrative inconsistent with the others. It's possible, but so is:

*The suspect changed their own story about what happened when they were alone suspiciously.

*The suspect gave a narrative inconsistent with other non-narrative evidence. Such as, a suspect could have said they were dropping feed for sheep where there was no food. Or they were preparing a meal and there was no evidence of meal preparation.

All three of those things could be what LE meant when they referenced inconsistent stories.

MOO

 

[gerardo20]

We don't know which part of the story these discrepancies were in and what they were about. What we know is that Jess is not the suspect, so if she said she went out to the pastures with Josie, it cannot be lie.

I agree that Jess saying whe went with Josie adds credibility to that story, but I don't think it removes all possibility that it is a lie.

<modsnip>

 

[Orbweaver]

As an American, I respect and appreciate that the justice system in Australia seems to be far more distanced from the media than the U.S. but MAN is it frustrating to go months without a morsel of an update. Following international (to my location) cases like this is such a practice in patience. The lack of media involvement is akin to culture shock.

 

[AmoryK]

I agree that Jess saying whe went with Josie adds credibility to that story, but I don't think it removes all possibility that it is a lie.

<modsnip>

Indeed. MOO - It’s not beyond the realms of possibility that Jess innocently agreed to say that Josie was the one with her and Shannon was looking after the children because she believed there might be adverse comments about Josie’s ability to look after young children. Then as discrepancies are revealed, Jess re-assesses her decision to make this small white lie, and it is her revelation to LE that prompts them taking the vehicles and declaring a suspect.

However, I do think it’s more likely that Josie the one who went with Jess, but we don’t know for sure. Even if Josie did go, I’d always imagined (MOO) that the discrepancies were based around this timeline, with Josie possibly being apart from Jess for some time.

(Note - I can’t find the article now because I presume it was corrected, but on the first day I read about Gus Josie was the one named as being back at the homestead. I’m saying that because someone above mentioned it. I don’t know if it was just a mistake or if it was originally the story, which was then changed).)

 

[Monkey2]

...if Josie did go, I’d always imagined (MOO) that the discrepancies were based around this timeline, with Josie possibly being apart from Jess for some time.

I agree with you, but if that was the case, we don't know what time that would have been during the day, or for how long Josie was gone, but surely it would make Shannon complicit if she had contacted Josie to come and hide Gus's body.
Or is that just me jumping to conclusions a bit too far.

I think Shannon has always been the one that stayed home minding the children that day.

It would be interesting to know if Jess is still on speaking terms with either of her parents.

 

[twomoresmores]

As an American, I respect and appreciate that the justice system in Australia seems to be far more distanced from the media than the U.S. but MAN is it frustrating to go months without a morsel of an update. Following international (to my location) cases like this is such a practice in patience. The lack of media involvement is akin to culture shock.

It seems surprising that no local news outlet is reporting anything even if there's nothing new to report. Also, with the passage of time, I find it strange that there's been a suspect declared but nothing has followed. Can the suspect have this status indefinitely? Perhaps for years? Living under the cloud that LE suspects them of being involved but can't find enough evidence to charge them? Can anyone shed any light on this?
MOO.

 

[Morequestionsthananswers]

It seems surprising that no local news outlet is reporting anything even if there's nothing new to report. Also, with the passage of time, I find it strange that there's been a suspect declared but nothing has followed. Can the suspect have this status indefinitely? Perhaps for years? Living under the cloud that LE suspects them of being involved but can't find enough evidence to charge them? Can anyone shed any light on this?
MOO.

Sure is strange and annoying to hear nothing . Is it what happens in South Australia ? The Tricia Graf case is quiet too .

 

[Kemug]

It seems surprising that no local news outlet is reporting anything even if there's nothing new to report. Also, with the passage of time, I find it strange that there's been a suspect declared but nothing has followed. Can the suspect have this status indefinitely? Perhaps for years? Living under the cloud that LE suspects them of being involved but can't find enough evidence to charge them? Can anyone shed any light on this?
MOO.

And where are the grandparents now? We heard that they had left the property, but nothing since. Other people, eg royals, celebrities etc are often tracked down, usually by enthusiastic press. But no sightings at all. Perhaps they are staying with old friends on a sheep or cattle station somewhere in the middle of nowhere. That seems likely to me. I doubt they would miss having a social life, shopping, etc. Yes, I can see that.