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

[Warshawski]

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.

Imo, finding little Gus will provide vital information, but which way it points is to be seen, when / if that happens.

 

[Cedars]

Very normal to obtain legal representation to act on your behalf,legally, as per our rights we don’t have to comment or speak to police beyond confirming our id, and every lawyer would encourage you to invoke this right

Yes, but unfortunately if you do it at the moment when police have started questioning your story regarding how a child disappeared, they are going to interpret it as a move to cover up your guilt.

Most famous case of this was the parents of JonBenet Ramsey in the US.

JMO

 

[BreakingNews]

Yes, but unfortunately if you do it at the moment when police have started questioning your story regarding how a child disappeared, they are going to interpret it as a move to cover up your guilt.

Most famous case of this was the parents of JonBenet Ramsey in the US.

JMO

In Australia, you are innocent until proven guilty. You dont have to co-operate.

 

[Cedars]

In Australia, you are innocent until proven guilty. You dont have to co-operate.

Yes, in court. Police, however, are able to form theories about anyone's guilt, and try to find enough evidence to bring them to trial. For eg, wiretaps.

 

[_sleuthdog_]

7 months

 

[packetgravy]

Most famous case of this was the parents of JonBenet Ramsey in the US.

JMO

Off topic but also a lifelong topic for me.
It was the Mum.

MOO

 

[BreakingNews]

Yes, in court. Police, however, are able to form theories about anyone's guilt, and try to find enough evidence to bring them to trial. For eg, wiretaps.

Not just in court. If you have not been proved guilty in court, you cannot be deemed guilty. Everyone is deemed innocent until a court proves otherwise.

 

[rvlvr]

The court of public opinion is a different matter obviously though I’d imagine this incredibly isolated outback family couldn’t care less what people think of them. Quite right, too.

The grandparents have obviously previously spoken to police at length and have also allowed them access to their land and properties repeatedly. At the point that police started to suspect them it made perfect sense for them to stop talking. It’s up to police to evidence any theories they have now, will be interesting to see what - if anything - they can come up with.

 

[musicaljoke]

Yes, in court. Police, however, are able to form theories about anyone's guilt, and try to find enough evidence to bring them to trial. For eg, wiretaps.

When investigators form theories about anyone's guilt, the result can be tunnel vision and can lead to miscarriage of justice. Investigators might ignore other possible leads or interpretations of evidence.

For example, once an investigator becomes convinced that a particular person committed the crime, they might subconsciously disregard or downplay any evidence that contradicts their theory. Over time, this narrowed focus can result in biased decisions, preventing the truth from surfacing.

Investigators don't look for evidence to support their theories. They have to look for evidence without a rush to judgement, while remaining objective and without bias or preconceived theories of who might be guilty.

 

[Cedars]

When investigators form theories about anyone's guilt, the result can be tunnel vision and can lead to miscarriage of justice. Investigators might ignore other possible leads or interpretations of evidence.

For example, once an investigator becomes convinced that a particular person committed the crime, they might subconsciously disregard or downplay any evidence that contradicts their theory. Over time, this narrowed focus can result in biased decisions, preventing the truth from surfacing.

Investigators don't look for evidence to support their theories. They have to look for evidence without a rush to judgement, while remaining objective and without bias or preconceived theories of who might be guilty.

I agree, any investigation must start with an open mind and a wide search for any clues, through intense seaching, not just for the victim, but for any physical clues such as tracks, phone data, dropped toys or clothing, distant CCTV capturing a vehicle, publicizing for tips, a nearby dingo den....

On the other hand, everything criminology has learned about missing children is that the most likely perp is the family member or close friend of family.

https://www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi/tandi255

Similar to how, if anyone's wife disappears, the husband will be the prime suspect. Just because he hires a lawyer and refuses to speak to police, no way are LE going conclude 'ok, the guy hired a lawyer so I have to presume he's innocent, and try to find some other perp'.

IMO, that is not strictly speaking tunnel vision it's a process of ruling out the most obvious suspects, just based on the nature and circumstances of the crime.
- the person was there on the scene
-the person has no alibi.

I'm sure if other evidence comes up, they'll follow it - but, in the absense of any other evidence, who else would be on their suspect list? They won't start just investigating random people for no reason.

JMO