Gus Lamont disappearance: Why police identified ‘suspect’ before laying charges as investigation continues

When South Australia Police declared the disappearance of Gus Lamont a major crime last week, they revealed just how much progress they had quietly made and how confident they have become that the answer lies close to home.

For months, police scoured Oak Park Station and the harsh surrounding outback to eliminate the possibility the four-year-old simply wandered off.

Then, after months of silence, Detective Superintendent Darren Fielke stepped up to the microphones and did something investigators rarely do without purpose.

He declared Gus’ disappearance a major crime and made clear the investigation had narrowed its focus to a suspect known to him – someone who lives on the property but is not a parent.

In an excruciatingly calculated moment, the officer in charge of the investigation admitted they had not yet found Gus’ body and had not laid charges but their net had significantly tightened.

Det-Supt Fielke said Taskforce Horizon had worked through three possibilities: that Gus wandered off, that he was abducted by an unknown person or that someone known to him was involved in his disappearance and “likely death”.

After months of work, he said, police had found no evidence Gus had wandered from Oak Park Station – a sprawling, isolated property in the vast South Australian outback – and no evidence of abduction.

The investigation, Det-Supt Fielke said, would now “centre around people who are known to Gus who may have been involved in his disappearance”.

It was an update but also a line in the sand.

Why the police went public before charges

Vincent Hurley, a former Detective Superintendent who spent 29 years in the NSW Police Force, said he was unsurprised by the decision to go public, though he understood why many people were.

“The public would have been shocked, because up until the press conference, there was no indication that (suspicion about family involvement) was the case,” he said.

“But when you start a criminal investigation that would be a first logical assumption.”

Dr Hurley, who now lectures in policing at Macquarie University, said investigators appeared to have reached their position through a process of elimination.

He said the press conference changed not only the investigative posture, but also the social and emotional landscape for Gus’ family.

By narrowing the suspect pool so precisely – essentially to two people – police effectively invited the public to do the arithmetic.

“(Police) would be certain in their own mind but they have to be able to prove it by law,” he said.

“And while you might have certain evidence or even a number of pieces of evidence, sometimes you need to find that missing piece, because ultimately they want to get this individual before the court.

“Ultimately they want to be able to convince the jury that the information they have is beyond a reasonable doubt.”

Saying ‘suspect’ is a strategy

Last week, police used the language of suspicion.

Dr Hurley believes the choice to say “suspect” – a term with legal, strategic and psychological weight – rather than “person of interest” would have been deliberate.

“Because, again, they would have to be really sure in their mind that they are suspects and police would have got legal advice on that.”

“When police give press conferences, there’s always a specific reason and strategy and time.

“I suspect that they have exhausted all other avenues and now the press conference is designed to bring pressure on those two individuals.”

Forensic anthropologist and criminologist Xanthe Weston said the public declaration itself is a confidence signal but not a guarantee that charges are imminent.

“The police will always say what is appropriate for the investigation at the time, but it was a fairly confident thing to say,” she said.

“Charges haven’t been laid, so we have to be cautious about the strength of the evidence.

“But certainly they were confident enough to make that statement, which is bold, given that the allegation is that it’s within the family.”

Police have not revealed everything

Dr Weston, an Associate Professor of Criminology at Central Queensland University, said the detail in the briefing served more than one function. It informed the public but it also declared: this is where we are now.

She believes police would still be holding “a lot” close to their chests.

“I think they just really wanted to reassure people,” she said.

“They were very detailed and I think part of that was to put the public’s mind at ease that they were being incredibly thorough in their investigation.

“And given that they were making a bold statement about who their suspect is, they wanted to really be clear that they had thoroughly looked at the other lines of inquiry and excluded them.”

Dr Hurley said over the past five months police would have taken statements, re-taken statements, and would now be tightening the bolts.

“When police take statements from individuals, that first statement is just a baseline statement to tie an individual to a story,” he said.

“As the search or the investigation unfolds, they then go back and cross reference with previous statements and if those statements don’t marry with what the police were previously told, then of course, it raises red flags.”

He said that when investigators sense there is “something more to it”, they formalise the process again.

“They will take another statement, because they will be relying upon that second statement as evidence down the track.”

And crucially – especially when family members are in the frame – he said detectives typically leave their hardest conversation until last.

The toll on Gus’ family

“In the majority of my experience, the last person you speak to is the suspect, because you want to try and wedge that person into a corner to hold them to account for the discrepancies.”

Det-Supt Fielke revealed detectives executed a search warrant at Oak Park Station on January 14 and 15 and conducted a “comprehensive forensic search of the homestead”, seizing “a vehicle, a motorcycle and electronic devices for forensic examination”.

He said further searches are anticipated at Oak Park Station and “several sites on an adjacent national park” as new information comes to hand.

A national park close to Oak Park Station – Pualco Range Conservation Park – appears the most plausible “adjacent national park” by proximity.

Experts say the “bombshell” press conference would have left Gus’ mother, Jessica Lamont, in an agonising position.

“It’s horrendous,” Dr Weston said.

“I mean, my heart goes out to the whole family. This must be so awful for the parents.

“I’ve worked on a number of intra-familial cases, and they are the most traumatic psychologically for families.”

Dr Hurley believes police would have given Gus’ parents some notice of their planned announcement last week, but not much.

“That would be strategically determined by the police,” he said.

“They wouldn’t have dropped it on them at a press conference but it would have just been hours earlier, I would suspect. Probably the morning of the press conference.

“(Ms Lamont) would be going through unbelievable anguish.”

Andrew Ey, of Mangan Ey and Associates, is acting for Gus’ grandmother Josie Murray while Casey Isaacs, of Caldicott + Isaacs Lawyers, is acting for his other grandmother, Shannon Murray.

Last week the lawyers released a joint statement on their clients’ behalf.

“We are absolutely devastated by the media release of SAPOL Major Crime,” the grandparents said.

“The family has cooperated fully with the investigation and want nothing more than to find Gus and reunite him with his mum and dad.”

This week both lawyers declined to comment.

SAPOL also declined to comment.

“We will not be making any further comment on what has already been released regarding this matter,” a spokesperson said.