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

 

[packetgravy]

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.

The evidence is the stairs, the theory is the door and the answer is what’s behind it.

 

[JLZ]

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

The link doesn't support that. It's not addressing the same subject as your claim. First, it's not about missing people, it's about homicides. Not all missing children die, and not all who died were killed. Not all killed children were first 'missing'. Then, the basis of the data is police classification of 'solved' cases. So there's a bunch of unsolved cases the proper solution of which might change the look of the data.

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'.

Presumption of innocence doesn't mean that police can't investigate or charge somebody. If it did, nobody could ever be investigated and charged because every one of them, not having been yet convicted, has to be presumed innocent. I think presumption of innocence outside the courtroom means that suspects have rights the same as anyone else: they can't be bashed into a confession, and they shouldn't be unfairly coerced by the manipulation of public opinion.

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.

Ruling out, if possible, the most obvious suspects first is an excellent approach. The thing is, the most obvious suspect on the basis of being 'there on the scene' and having 'no alibi' is the victim. It seems to me that police are increasingly inclined to treat the victim as the perpetrator or at best a troublemaker. It's simple, it's efficient, it stops people reporting crimes and that improves police and politician image.

 

[Ruminations]

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

The police said they did investigate fairly random people...sex offenders in the area, and people who recently worked on the station and nearby stations. And discounted them as suspects.

MOO

 

[jepop]

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

The paper linked doesn't speak to unsolved missing children cases (as already pointed out by another poster). It is also badly out of date (2003), citing research from the 80s and 90s to c2002. That's pretty annoying coming from a paper in an Aust. Govt. website, where the info is listed as last updated in 2024!

Putting the above aside, this dated research showed that the most common perpetrator of filicide was a parent, not a grandparent.The research showed that statistically speaking grandparents were only involved in a small number of family related homicides (up to the late 90s-2002), though it doesn't distinguish between filicide and other family homicides. So purely from a statistical POV, the paper doesn't really support a contention that a grandparent would be immediately suspect of a filicide.

I think stats are of limited value for investigators on the ground because imo each case should be investigated according to its specific circumstances. For eg, in this case, it seems very certain that neither of Gus' parents are involved in his disappearance per SAPOL.

Moo, we already know that SAPOL, as discussed many times on the thread, were running concurrent lines of investigation from early on in Gus' disappearance and it's only since early Feb this year that major crimes took over the investigation, subsequently leading to the announcement of a suspect.

I think police need to avoid tunnel vision, which moo can definately occur should they have preconceived ideas based on statistics (whatever those statistics might be for missing child cases both solved and unsolved). I do not think SAPOL have displayed tunnel vision in this case and I think part of avoiding tunnel vision is to put aside statistics during any investigation!

Of course SAPOL looked early on at the last person to have seen Gus, which I understand to have been his grandmother, SM ( according to family statements at the time Gus went missing). However, as of today, the public aren't aware of investigative details and the discrepancies and inconsistencies discovered in family statements which lead to Gus' case being sent to Major Crime earlier this year and the declaration that there is a suspect (one of the two grandparents per inferences gleaned from Feb 4th presser). Jmo

 

[Bigditch]

The evidence is the stairs, the theory is the door and the answer is what’s behind it.

Weird analogy but I like it.

 

[Bigditch]

The police said they did investigate fairly random people...sex offenders in the area, and people who recently worked on the station and nearby stations. And discounted them as suspects.

MOO

Do you have a link to the sex offender reference. I must've missed it. Thank you

 

[Bigditch]

The paper linked doesn't speak to unsolved missing children cases (as already pointed out by another poster). It is also badly out of date (2003), citing research from the 80s and 90s to c2002. That's pretty annoying coming from a paper in an Aust. Govt. website, where the info is listed as last updated in 2024!

Putting the above aside, this dated research showed that the most common perpetrator of filicide was a parent, not a grandparent.The research showed that statistically speaking grandparents were only involved in a small number of family related homicides (up to the late 90s-2002), though it doesn't distinguish between filicide and other family homicides. So purely from a statistical POV, the paper doesn't really support a contention that a grandparent would be immediately suspect of a filicide.

I think stats are of limited value for investigators on the ground because imo each case should be investigated according to its specific circumstances. For eg, in this case, it seems very certain that neither of Gus' parents are involved in his disappearance per SAPOL.

Moo, we already know that SAPOL, as discussed many times on the thread, were running concurrent lines of investigation from early on in Gus' disappearance and it's only since early Feb this year that major crimes took over the investigation, subsequently leading to the announcement of a suspect.

I think police need to avoid tunnel vision, which moo can definately occur should they have preconceived ideas based on statistics (whatever those statistics might be for missing child cases both solved and unsolved). I do not think SAPOL have displayed tunnel vision in this case and I think part of avoiding tunnel vision is to put aside statistics during any investigation!

Of course SAPOL looked early on at the last person to have seen Gus, which I understand to have been his grandmother, SM ( according to family statements at the time Gus went missing). However, as of today, the public aren't aware of investigative details and the discrepancies and inconsistencies discovered in family statements which lead to Gus' case being sent to Major Crime earlier this year and the declaration that there is a suspect (one of the two grandparents per inferences gleaned from Feb 4th presser). Jmo

When performed correctly statistics don't lie.

 

[jepop]

Do you have a link to the sex offender reference. I must've missed it. Thank you

Expanded upon in Feb 4th press conference. Detective Supt. Fielke went through the reasons why police concluded that abduction was extremely unlikely to impossible.

Post linked below has an excellent transcript of the entire press conference.

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

• 
• 
• 

Video link

The press conference was also reported on by numerous main stream media at the time.

 

[AmoryK]

At the point that police started to suspect them it made perfect sense for them to stop talking.

Not as grandparents IMO. Most grandparents would be desperate for police to find their missing grandchild. If the police started to act like they thought they were involved, most grandparents would be falling over themselves to prove they’re not: offering to take a lie detector test, asking if the police could look at satellites to prove their whereabouts, pulling out every single item of clothing they owned and inviting police to test it, telling them to take every vehicle immediately to test, offering to pay for special trackers to come in, etc etc.

Those hypothetical grandparents would all be driven by fear that the hunt would be diverted and frustration that time was being wasted, desperate to prove their innocence so the police could look elsewhere and hopefully find their grandchild.

 

[Bats]

At the point that police started to suspect them it made perfect sense for them to stop talking.

Not as grandparents IMO. Most grandparents would be desperate for police to find their missing grandchild. If the police started to act like they thought they were involved, most grandparents would be falling over themselves to prove they’re not: offering to take a lie detector test, asking if the police could look at satellites to prove their whereabouts, pulling out every single item of clothing they owned and inviting police to test it, telling them to take every vehicle immediately to test, offering to pay for special trackers to come in, etc etc.

Those hypothetical grandparents would all be driven by fear that the hunt would be diverted and frustration that time was being wasted, desperate to prove their innocence so the police could look elsewhere and hopefully find their grandchild.

I am not a grandparent, but I think if the police started to point the finger at me, I would lose faith and take the search into my own hands. Not sure I'd be concerned about proving my innocence tbh. My energy would be spent looking for my grandchild.