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

[Judy Sleuth]

There were four adults living there at the property, but yes,-- primarily the mom and partner would be the most responsible for laying eyes on them last.
Imo.

I'm not sure there were four adults living there. Back in post #189, the OP gave some quotes from an article in the Globe And Mail that was unlocked then but is now behind a paywall. I hope it's still okay to quote a snip that highlights the reporter's grammar. The reporter wrote about the stepdad's brother and mother using the word "and," then continued "who also LIVES on the property...." If they both lived there, we'd see "who also LIVE" on the property. (assuming the reporter proofread carefully)



Similar to: In my apartment building, we were talking with Cindy and Tom, who also lives there. My example mimics the reporter, and it communicates that we were talking with both of those people, but only Tom lives there.



So I'm thinking only step-grandma lives there. And of course, we don't know that she was home at the time of the disappearance.

 

[thispersonj]

The mom may only have learned later that the kids were outside playing because perhaps the stepfather’s mother or brother might have seen them and told her such. We don’t know…

You're right: If that was true, then the wording wouldn't be sus at all.

Heck, maybe they viewed their security camera footage after the fact.
Heck, maybe mom looked out the window and saw them playing.
But you'd think such an enormous detail would make its way into the releases, press conferences, interviews ... something. So, that's why I brought up: No one has publicly stated that anyone witnessed them playing outside, yet mom insists this is something they later realized.

 

[Snoop Sister]

You're right: If that was true, then the wording wouldn't be sus at all.

Heck, maybe they viewed their security camera footage after the fact.
Heck, maybe mom looked out the window and saw them playing.
But you'd think such an enormous detail would make its way into the releases, press conferences, interviews ... something. So, that's why I brought up: No one has publicly stated that anyone witnessed them playing outside, yet mom insists this is something they later realized.

Yes, I did question that myself and thought things were rather nefarious back in thread #1. I was just offering an alternative. And, as someone else mentioned, details are being held back from us. I have a feeling DM has been advised about what he should and shouldn’t discuss with the press. Jmo. Also, it has been posted several times in the past threads that the mom’s mother told the press via a telephone call, that the RCMP advised them not to talk to the press.

 

[Andromeda]

<modsnip: Quoted post was removed>

“ […]…are there any suspects here?

Again, I am not going to comment on the details of the investigation. But I will comment, when someone goes missing and we become engaged, as any police officer, not just Major Crime, we will look at all details and make considerations on the information we have, right? When it comes to a missing person, we have to automatically consider uh, are there people that are have different Charter implications and things like that. So, we will automatically start to consider what evidence is pointing us towards a suspicious in nature. […]

Bbm

Recall yesterday’s discussion around , the parents having to be outside with the kids *and* watching the kids.

Malehya Brooks-Murray: “We always make sure that we’re out there with them, watching them.”

IMO, If one is making sure of something, it’s because they are following instructions. In this case there are two things MBM says they make sure of: 1-the kids are not alone in the yard, and 2-the kids are supervised by them. jmo

Bmm

@ 20 seconds
Mother of missing Nova Scotia children pleads for safe return

 

[shetalksinstereo]

And I also feel there’s a degree of ‘look over there’ from the stepdad. As if he’s trying to almost steer it in one direction and away from other areas that might be of more interest

Yep, kind of like the Maddie Soto case.

 

[LookingForClues]

I'm not sure there were four adults living there. Back in post #189, the OP gave some quotes from an article in the Globe And Mail that was unlocked then but is now behind a paywall. I hope it's still okay to quote a snip that highlights the reporter's grammar. The reporter wrote about the stepdad's brother and mother using the word "and," then continued "who also LIVES on the property...." If they both lived there, we'd see "who also LIVE" on the property. (assuming the reporter proofread carefully)



Similar to: In my apartment building, we were talking with Cindy and Tom, who also lives there. My example mimics the reporter, and it communicates that we were talking with both of those people, but only Tom lives there.



So I'm thinking only step-grandma lives there. And of course, we don't know that she was home at the time of the disappearance.

I caught that singular verb usage and also thought it's probable only the grandmother lives in the RV.

It was a Friday, so I think it's possible DM's mother (grandma) might have been at work. DM is young enough that his mother may not be retired yet, depending on her age.

I don't think we've been told by LE whether she is the only one who lives there, and if she was there Friday when the kids were reported missing (or if anyone else was there).

 

[Snoop Sister]

Yes, I have every confidence they are on top of things.

All sorts of opinions and theories will be floated as we hope for news, I appreciate reading all of them.

Moo

Our Mounties always get their man/woman.

 

[iamafiusny]

I also found it unusual that both she and DM made sure to tell the press about how that door is silent, cannot be heard when it is opened. It helps support the "they were outside but we weren't aware of it at the time." JMO

Also this quote made by stepdad.


"I have no idea why (anyone) would want to take them, but they're easy to take. If they would have wandered to the road, they would get in any car as long as you offered them food or water, or even candy or anything like that — or even to see mom and dad, they would immediately get in"

Jmo

 

[MistyWaters]

Yes, you and I are on the same page.

“ […]…are there any suspects here?

Again, I am not going to comment on the details of the investigation. But I will comment, when someone goes missing and we become engaged, as any police officer, not just Major Crime, we will look at all details and make considerations on the information we have, right? When it comes to a missing person, we have to automatically consider uh, are there people that are have different Charter implications and things like that. So, we will automatically start to consider what evidence is pointing us towards a suspicious in nature. […]

Bbm

Recall yesterday’s discussion around , the parents having to be outside with the kids *and* watching the kids.

Malehya Brooks-Murray: “We always make sure that we’re out there with them, watching them.”

IMO, If one is making sure of something, it’s because they are following instructions. In this case there are two things MBM says they make sure of: 1-the kids are not alone in the yard, and 2-the kids are supervised by them. jmo

Bmm

@ 20 seconds
Mother of missing Nova Scotia children pleads for safe return

“Charter implications and things like that” immediately reminds me of recent legal proceedings involving Indigenous rights and the Canadian Charter. What specifically that’s referring to, I don’t have a clue other than it’s been reported the children are members of Sipekne'katik First Nation, lineage to their maternal grandfather.

Supreme Court applies Charter to Indigenous Governments, but protects “Indigenous difference" - OKT | Olthuis Kleer Townshend LLP

Tuesday, April 23, 2024 The Supreme Court’s recent decision in Dickson v Vuntut Gwitchin interprets the relationship between individual Charter rights and freedoms, and Indigenous collective rights.1 A majority of the court found that a self-governing First Nation’s law requiring elected leaders...

www.oktlaw.com

Supreme Court applies Charter to Indigenous Governments, but protects “Indigenous Difference”.

 

[thispersonj]

Also this quote made by stepdad.


"I have no idea why (anyone) would want to take them, but they're easy to take. If they would have wandered to the road, they would get in any car as long as you offered them food or water, or even candy or anything like that — or even to see mom and dad, they would immediately get in"

Jmo

Yes, plus the mom's interview suggested this even harder.

I can get behind a parent publicly floating abduction as a possibility in hopes that the police start expanding their search to nearby registered sex offenders, or searching for other suspicious activity.

But it's weird, IMO, to push that theory in a manner suggests you are super invested in that as a possibility without looking at the camera and making a plea to the abductors or saying something to your kids, e.g. "Guys, just don't give up hope. We love you. Mommy's coming to get you. The police are going to find you soon," or "If you have my kids, please, just let them go. Please, they're my everything ..."

I'm being a pretty Negative Nancy, I realize. But these interviews, IMO, were just riddled with contradictions.

 

[tarabull]

Has any child ever died from this? I think we can rule out cannabis.

Virginia mother pleads guilty in 4-year-old son's death from THC gummies

A mother in Spotsylvania County, Virginia, pleaded guilty Monday to involuntary manslaughter in the death of her 4-year-old son, who consumed a fatal amount of marijuana-infused gummies last year.

www.nbcwashington.com

 

[AIGT]

“Charter implications and things like that” immediately reminds me of recent legal proceedings involving Indigenous rights and the Canadian Charter. What specifically that’s referring to, I don’t have a clue other than it’s been reported the children are members of Sipekne'katik First Nation, lineage to their maternal grandfather.

Supreme Court applies Charter to Indigenous Governments, but protects “Indigenous difference" - OKT | Olthuis Kleer Townshend LLP

Tuesday, April 23, 2024 The Supreme Court’s recent decision in Dickson v Vuntut Gwitchin interprets the relationship between individual Charter rights and freedoms, and Indigenous collective rights.1 A majority of the court found that a self-governing First Nation’s law requiring elected leaders...

www.oktlaw.com

Supreme Court applies Charter to Indigenous Governments, but protects “Indigenous Difference”.

They may be referring to how they are proceeding.
For example when they’re originally responding to the missing child call they have pretty loose restrictions on being on the property, search, asking questions. If at any point during the missing person investigation the police have reason to believe it’s a criminal investigation then they need to start taking extra precautions that what they are doing doesn’t infringe on anyone’s charter rights.

For short - They can’t continue to do some things under the guise of a SAR when actually gathering evidence of criminality

 

[MistyWaters]

Further on that topic, maybe a foolish notion but I’m going to admit I’ve wondered if the two missing children were taken and are on the reserve for their protection, especially if there’s been recent CPS involvement deeming them at risk of intervention. It doesn’t take much these days, for example simply a report from a school about a child being hungry or not being clothed properly. Purely my speculation…while hoping for a best case scenario.

Indigenous communities are taking over child welfare

Indigenous Peoples have lost their children to residential schools, day schools, boarding schools, the ‘60s Scoop and child welfare.

www.aptnnews.ca

“We have a responsibility to put them first. They are even more important than the Elders. The Elders are important because they teach the children, but the children are the most important.”

Indigenous people ‘know the best for their children’

 

[AIGT]

Yes, plus the mom's interview suggested this even harder.

I can get behind a parent publicly floating abduction as a possibility in hopes that the police start expanding their search to nearby registered sex offenders, or searching for other suspicious activity.

But it's weird, IMO, to push that theory in a manner suggests you are super invested in that as a possibility without looking at the camera and making a plea to the abductors or saying something to your kids, e.g. "Guys, just don't give up hope. We love you. Mommy's coming to get you. The police are going to find you soon," or "If you have my kids, please, just let them go. Please, they're my everything ..."

I'm being a pretty Negative Nancy, I realize. But these interviews, IMO, were just riddled with contradictions.

It’s weird to push that theory and then “I have no idea why anyone would want to take them” Unfortunately I think everyone could think of several reasons why someone would take a kid.

Martell’s quote “they’re easy to take” is just pushing the theory way too much in my opinion. They have several examples of this.

 

[iamafiusny]

Virginia mother pleads guilty in 4-year-old son's death from THC gummies

A mother in Spotsylvania County, Virginia, pleaded guilty Monday to involuntary manslaughter in the death of her 4-year-old son, who consumed a fatal amount of marijuana-infused gummies last year.

www.nbcwashington.com

I don't think it's very likely, especially for both of them to pass from it.

A lot things don't make sense when you take into account it's two missing kids, not just one.

Moo moo

Redirect Notice

 

[MistyWaters]

They may be referring to how they are proceeding.
For example when they’re originally responding to the missing child call they have pretty loose restrictions on being on the property, search, asking questions. If at any point during the missing person investigation the police have reason to believe it’s a criminal investigation then they need to start taking extra precautions that what they are doing doesn’t infringe on anyone’s charter rights.

For short - They can’t continue to do some things under the guise of a SAR when actually gathering evidence of criminality

For short - They can’t continue to do some things under the guise of a SAR when actually gathering evidence of criminality

I’m not following.

 

[appleatcha]

Further on that topic, maybe a foolish notion but I’m going to admit I’ve wondered if the two missing children were taken and are on the reserve for their protection, especially if there’s been recent CPS involvement deeming them at risk of intervention. It doesn’t take much these days, for example simply a report from a school about a child being hungry or not being clothed properly. Purely my speculation…while hoping for a best case scenario.

Indigenous communities are taking over child welfare

Indigenous Peoples have lost their children to residential schools, day schools, boarding schools, the ‘60s Scoop and child welfare.

www.aptnnews.ca

“We have a responsibility to put them first. They are even more important than the Elders. The Elders are important because they teach the children, but the children are the most important.”

Indigenous people ‘know the best for their children’

To clarify, is your theory that the band is withholding information about the children's whereabouts from Canadian law enforcement? If that was the case, I can't imagine why they wouldn't simply notify the police that they have the children so the search could be called off.

 

[AIGT]

I don't think it's very likely, especially for both of them to pass from it.

A lot things don't make sense when you take into account it's two missing kids, not just one.

Moo moo

Redirect Notice

I don’t believe cannabis. Fent is more likely but no evidence of that.

Given the children’s age it could be possible that something happened to one as a result of an accident/neglect and the other one witnessed it and that is the reason they had to disappear as well. Just a possibility.

 

[callmehenry]

Yep, kind of like the Maddie Soto case.

Yes definitely a hint of stephan stern going on in this case

 

[MistyWaters]

To clarify, is your theory that the band is withholding information about the children's whereabouts from Canadian law enforcement? If that was the case, I can't imagine why they wouldn't simply notify the police that they have the children so the search could be called off.

I don’t know either, my imagination is trying to figure out why “charter implications and things like that” is even mentioned unless the First Nations Band believes the onus is on them to protect their children (who are members) from negligent parenting if there’s a history with CPS and any possibility of CPS intervention. It might be the case they haven’t informed anyone because they believe it’s nobody’s business other than their own?

My understanding is many of the legal proceedings are to further their efforts to legally become a self-governing, autonomous nation which is distinct from the colonized Canadian government. JMO