CANADA Canada - Jack, 4 & Lilly Sullivan, 6, Vulnerable, wandered from home 10am, Gairloch Rd, Landsdowne Station, Pictou County, NS, 2 May 2025 #2

[iamafiusny]

MOO. One of my theories. So much talk about boots. DM mentioned their boots with more detail than anything else they were wearing and said "their boots were gone." He also mentioned the boot prints outside the house. The bus driver mentioned that Jack would take off his boot and throw it at him while he was driving. MBM didn't mention them in her interview, though. I wonder if Jack ever got in any trouble for throwing his boots? Did a fellow student tell their parents that Jack was prone to throw boots, or did the bus driver mention it? Were MBM and DM told about Jack's behavior by the school, maybe threatened that there would be a home visit to discuss Jack's behavior and Lilly's shrieking? IMO I think those "boots were gone" Tuesday night after the kids came home from school. IMO those boots are not where the children are.

I've had a similar thought regarding the boots being separate from the kids. And the boots being made to form a couple of footprints facing the road they never walk across.

Moo

 

[CityKid]

I've had a similar thought regarding the boots being separate from the kids. And the boots being made to form a couple of footprints facing the road they never walk across.

Moo

Yep. And they'd be left behind if there were an animal attack. MOO I believe the parents are responsible for what happened to poor Jack and Lilly; I haven't made up my mind if this was active or passive/negligent.

 

[branmuffin]

And him offering up his phone (confirm his whereabouts..NOT there) offering to take a lie detector (confirm he is telling the truth that he doesn't know where or what happened to the children)
JMO it could make sense that he wasn't there!?

I don't think DM giving his phone up to LE or asking to take a lie detector test are indicator or innocence. In the case of the phone, lots of people delete information but don't realize LE have ways of finding it. And almost everyone knows whether you take a lie detector test and fail it's still not permissible in court.

 

[Skigh]

MOO. One of my theories. So much talk about boots. DM mentioned their boots with more detail than anything else they were wearing and said "their boots were gone." He also mentioned the boot prints outside the house. The bus driver mentioned that Jack would take off his boot and throw it at him while he was driving. MBM didn't mention them in her interview, though. I wonder if Jack ever got in any trouble for throwing his boots? Did a fellow student tell their parents that Jack was prone to throw boots, or did the bus driver mention it? Were MBM and DM told about Jack's behavior by the school, maybe threatened that there would be a home visit to discuss Jack's behavior and Lilly's shrieking? IMO I think those "boots were gone" Tuesday night after the kids came home from school. IMO those boots are not where the children are.

It would be very unusual for there to be a home visit to discuss behaviour,usually parents are asked into school to have a discussion.
I wonder if the children always wore their boots or whether they had other outdoor shoes.

 

[iamafiusny]

I don't think DM giving his phone up to LE or asking to take a lie detector test are indicator or innocence. In the case of the phone, lots of people delete information but don't realize LE have ways of finding it. And almost everyone knows whether you take a lie detector test and fail it's still not permissible in court.

I find it all a bit try hard.

He could easily be offering these things to the police behind the scenes. We don't need to know about it.

He should focus his interviews on urging the public for help, and things about the kids that might help the public, or messages for the kids if they happen to see a TV.


Moo

 

[Tricia]

This thread is now closed.
Please continue HERE