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

[Kemug]

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

Hopefully LE know more than we do.

 

[Morequestionsthananswers]

Hopefully LE know more than we do.

Yeah I hope so

 

[Monkey2]

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.

The police have narrowed the suspect down basically to be one of two people, which to me is flying pretty close to the wind in terms of defamation if those two people are innocent.

This is what happened in another case when a policeman said they had their prime and only suspect and named him as Lloyd Rayney.
Rayney's wife, Corryn, was murdered in August 2007. In the following month, Rayney was publicly named by police as "the prime and only suspect", though he was not charged with the murder until December 2010, more than three years after the event
In 2017, he succeeded in a defamation action against the State of Western Australia over police behaviour and was awarded a record sum of $A2.62 million.

Lloyd Rayney gets $2.62m damages for being named suspect in wife's murder

Barrister awarded one of the largest defamation payouts in Australian history after being named in Corryn Rayney murder investigation

www.theguardian.com

In 2022 Lloyd Rayney won a $350,000 defamation payout, plus interest, for comments made by a forensic investigator which he claimed suggested he "murdered his wife and got away with it".

Lloyd Rayney awarded $350,000 for comments judge says 'bore the defamatory imputation he had murdered his wife'

Former Perth barrister Lloyd Rayney wins a $350,000 defamation payout, plus interest, for comments made by a forensic investigator which he claimed suggested he "murdered his wife and got away with it".

www.abc.net.au

No one has ever been found guilty of Mrs Rayney's murder and I have a feeling the same thing will happen in this case of poor little Gus. I suppose the only way for Shannon and Josie to prove their innocence is for Gus's remains to be found and it can be proved they had nothing to do with the matter. What does anyone else think about that?

 

[Hexe]

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

First articles referred to the person that was in the homestead with kids as a grandmother, without mentioning a name. Some people jumped to the conclusion it was Josie, BUT the media referred to her very consequently and from the beginning, as a grandparent, never grandmother.

MOO

 

[AmoryK]

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.

Yes, it would make Shannon complicit. I don’t know what happened but - MOO - I keep coming back to the idea that Gus suffered an avoidable accident and Josie was called back to deal with it.

Another possibility (JMO) is that Josie had to return to the farmstead for another reason, eg to get additional supplies, and it was during this time that something happened to Gus. That possibility would mean either or both Jodie and Shannon were involved.

 

[gerardo20]

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?

A person can remain a suspect without being charged for as long as an investigation is active (open). A person cannot be charged without any evidence, but can be charged once they have substantial evidence to support their suspicion...... However, they usually do not charge until they have enough evidence to convince a magistrate that the case should run and that there are reasonable prospects of conviction (beyond reasonable doubt)... i.e. that they have a prima facie case.
They can arrest based on a suspicion, for example to interview under arrest and perhaps gain incriminating evidence (e.g. conflicting statements which incriminate), but they cannot detain indefinately without charging and bring that charge to court.

The suspect can remain a suspect therefore in this case as long as police are regularly reviewing the case so that they can say it is still under investigation (trying to find further discrepancies, re-interviewing or waiting for a witness to present or change their statement, etc.)
jmo

 

[BreakingNews]

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.

Agree. However what would you expect the media would be reporting? There is nothing to report.

 

[Ruminations]

The police have narrowed the suspect down basically to be one of two people, which to me is flying pretty close to the wind in terms of defamation if those two people are innocent.

This is what happened in another case when a policeman said they had their prime and only suspect and named him as Lloyd Rayney.
Rayney's wife, Corryn, was murdered in August 2007. In the following month, Rayney was publicly named by police as "the prime and only suspect", though he was not charged with the murder until December 2010, more than three years after the event
In 2017, he succeeded in a defamation action against the State of Western Australia over police behaviour and was awarded a record sum of $A2.62 million.

Lloyd Rayney gets $2.62m damages for being named suspect in wife's murder

Barrister awarded one of the largest defamation payouts in Australian history after being named in Corryn Rayney murder investigation

www.theguardian.com

In 2022 Lloyd Rayney won a $350,000 defamation payout, plus interest, for comments made by a forensic investigator which he claimed suggested he "murdered his wife and got away with it".

Lloyd Rayney awarded $350,000 for comments judge says 'bore the defamatory imputation he had murdered his wife'

Former Perth barrister Lloyd Rayney wins a $350,000 defamation payout, plus interest, for comments made by a forensic investigator which he claimed suggested he "murdered his wife and got away with it".

www.abc.net.au

No one has ever been found guilty of Mrs Rayney's murder and I have a feeling the same thing will happen in this case of poor little Gus. I suppose the only way for Shannon and Josie to prove their innocence is for Gus's remains to be found and it can be proved they had nothing to do with the matter. What does anyone else think about that?

They are supposed to be presumed innocent until proven otherwise- no need to prove they are innocent ever.

I'm used to the US, and the term LE might use if someone is likely a witness or otherwise important to an investigation is "person of interest." And that person might become a suspect.

IMO, at the very least, the grandparents and Jess became likely witnesses to whatever crime happened as soon as it became clear that any crime at all happened. Thus, becoming persons of interest to the investigation no matter what happened.

But for whatever reason, LE pointedly used the word suspect, and pointedly excluded Jess as a suspect.

I don't know if LE reduced their potential liability by not saying which of two is their suspect, or if they just double it. There is an argument that LE is ruining the reputation of the other if one of them is a lone actor in a crime. If both are not involved in a crime, they are doing reputational harm to both!

MOO

 

[HoneyBunOne]

Sadly this case, along with Trisha Graf case, seem to have fallen off the radar. Lets hope police are doing there thing and getting closer every day to a huge breakthrough. Sadly, I think neither body is likely to be found any time soon. :-(

 

[packetgravy]

First articles referred to the person that was in the homestead with kids as a grandmother, without mentioning a name. Some people jumped to the conclusion it was Josie, BUT the media referred to her very consequently and from the beginning, as a grandparent, never grandmother.

MOO

“…in the homestead with kids”
“..media referred to her from the beginning, as a grandparent, never grandmother.”

Interesting.

And how has SAPOL referred to this person/persons present at the time of disappearance?

 

[packetgravy]

They are supposed to be presumed innocent until proven otherwise- no need to prove they are innocent ever.

I'm used to the US, and the term LE might use if someone is likely a witness or otherwise important to an investigation is "person of interest." And that person might become a suspect.

IMO, at the very least, the grandparents and Jess became likely witnesses to whatever crime happened as soon as it became clear that any crime at all happened. Thus, becoming persons of interest to the investigation no matter what happened.

But for whatever reason, LE pointedly used the word suspect, and pointedly excluded Jess as a suspect.

I don't know if LE reduced their potential liability by not saying which of two is their suspect, or if they just double it. There is an argument that LE is ruining the reputation of the other if one of them is a lone actor in a crime. If both are not involved in a crime, they are doing reputational harm to both!

MOO

At this stage, SAPOL have confirmed one suspect in relation to the investigation. This individual is connected to the property.

This does not confirm the current suspect as being the only individual under consideration.

Nor does it exclude other individuals from ongoing lines of inquiry..

The media tell us only one grandparent was home when Gus went missing, going even as far as to name the individual as Shannon.

I wonder if this lines up with SAPOL recent pressers

MOO

 

[Porky1]

Sadly this case, along with Trisha Graf case, seem to have fallen off the radar. Lets hope police are doing there thing and getting closer every day to a huge breakthrough. Sadly, I think neither body is likely to be found any time soon. :-(

I hope not. I doubt that it has. SAPOL would be keen to see the case closed, with a conviction.

 

[Monkey2]

They are supposed to be presumed innocent until proven otherwise- no need to prove they are innocent ever.

I'm used to the US, and the term LE might use if someone is likely a witness or otherwise important to an investigation is "person of interest." And that person might become a suspect.

IMO, at the very least, the grandparents and Jess became likely witnesses to whatever crime happened as soon as it became clear that any crime at all happened. Thus, becoming persons of interest to the investigation no matter what happened.

But for whatever reason, LE pointedly used the word suspect, and pointedly excluded Jess as a suspect.

I don't know if LE reduced their potential liability by not saying which of two is their suspect, or if they just double it. There is an argument that LE is ruining the reputation of the other if one of them is a lone actor in a crime. If both are not involved in a crime, they are doing reputational harm to both!

MOO

BBM
I was thinking along the lines of police finding out that someone else is responsible for Gus's disappearance.
If that doesn't happen, the problem for the grandparents is when does the person who is now a suspect not be a suspect any more.
The only way I see the suspect tag lifted is if police get the evidence and someone else is convicted.
The timeline inconsistencies must have been pretty damning for major crime to be called in and if that's the only reason why the person known to Gus became a suspect then it's pretty spurious.
To me an inconsistent timeline isn't even enough for police to say they have a person of interest.
I can quite easily see how the reputations of both grandparents would now be in tatters.

 

[Morequestionsthananswers]

It’s a shame they didn’t bring in the specialist dogs on day one to pick up on a scent before all the searchers arrived.

 

[katydid23]

The police have narrowed the suspect down basically to be one of two people, which to me is flying pretty close to the wind in terms of defamation if those two people are innocent.

This is what happened in another case when a policeman said they had their prime and only suspect and named him as Lloyd Rayney.
Rayney's wife, Corryn, was murdered in August 2007. In the following month, Rayney was publicly named by police as "the prime and only suspect", though he was not charged with the murder until December 2010, more than three years after the event
In 2017, he succeeded in a defamation action against the State of Western Australia over police behaviour and was awarded a record sum of $A2.62 million.

Lloyd Rayney gets $2.62m damages for being named suspect in wife's murder

Barrister awarded one of the largest defamation payouts in Australian history after being named in Corryn Rayney murder investigation

www.theguardian.com

In 2022 Lloyd Rayney won a $350,000 defamation payout, plus interest, for comments made by a forensic investigator which he claimed suggested he "murdered his wife and got away with it".

Lloyd Rayney awarded $350,000 for comments judge says 'bore the defamatory imputation he had murdered his wife'

Former Perth barrister Lloyd Rayney wins a $350,000 defamation payout, plus interest, for comments made by a forensic investigator which he claimed suggested he "murdered his wife and got away with it".

www.abc.net.au

No one has ever been found guilty of Mrs Rayney's murder and I have a feeling the same thing will happen in this case of poor little Gus. I suppose the only way for Shannon and Josie to prove their innocence is for Gus's remains to be found and it can be proved they had nothing to do with the matter. What does anyone else think about that?

I think it's kind of interesting that Jess has remained so quiet during this difficult time.

IMO, if she felt that the investigators were being unfair and were erroneously making wild accusations, I think she'd maybe say something. She was raised by both of them and has seen how they treat her young sons.

I know that if anyone was accusing my parents of mistreating and/or disappearing my child, I'd say that was hard to believe and I don't think they could ever do that.

Her silence right now is kind of revealing, imo.

 

[FromGermany1]

Agree. However what would you expect the media would be reporting? There is nothing to report.

bbm
Maybe, there would be, but media is blocked. I would like to know.

 

[Kemug]

I think it's kind of interesting that Jess has remained so quiet during this difficult time.

IMO, if she felt that the investigators were being unfair and were erroneously making wild accusations, I think she'd maybe say something. She was raised by both of them and has seen how they treat her young sons.

I know that if anyone was accusing my parents of mistreating and/or disappearing my child, I'd say that was hard to believe and I don't think they could ever do that.

Her silence right now is kind of revealing, imo.

Yes, she was raised by them, and has probably inherited their (seemingly) taciturn natures. But who knows? Maybe she is as confused as we are.

 

[gerardo20]

she was raised by them, and has probably inherited their (seemingly) taciturn natures.

Hmmmm... are you implying that inheritance is an issue here? just asking....

 

[Kemug]

No Gerry, those were just my simple musings.

 

[Ruminations]

Hmmmm... are you implying that inheritance is an issue here? just asking....

I don't think OP meant inheritance of material property or assets. I read the post to mean inheritence of personality traits, in this case of tending to taciturn.

I don't see any reasonable property/asset inheritance explanation for the disappearance of Gus. I know it has been discussed at nauseating lengths in other platforms, but, why?

The only person who has an asset inheritance motive to disappear Gus was 1 at the time.

MOO