CANADA Canada - Jack, 4 & Lilly Sullivan, 6, Vulnerable, wandered from home 10am, Gairloch Rd, Landsdowne Station, Pictou County, NS, 2 May 2025 #3

[sunshineray]

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.

Isn't passive negligence a thoroughly active choice by caregivers? MO

 

[iamafiusny]

No, neither of them has been named a POI, nor has anyone else been named.

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

Monday at 4:29 PM

ADMIN NOTE:

We recognize that members are having difficulty determining what is or is not victim friendly in this particular case.

Members are allowed to theorize based on what we know. Part of what we know is that there seem to be unusual circumstances where mom and step-dad are now separate and apart and we aren't getting a clear picture of what is going on.

This is a bit different than other cases where there don't appear to be these types of odd issues.

Based on this unusual situation, we are allowing members to post their theories on what they think is going on, but...

• Sillybilly

• 

 

[Lucy6226]

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

Monday at 4:29 PM

ADMIN NOTE:

We recognize that members are having difficulty determining what is or is not victim friendly in this particular case.

Members are allowed to theorize based on what we know. Part of what we know is that there seem to be unusual circumstances where mom and step-dad are now separate and apart and we aren't getting a clear picture of what is going on.

This is a bit different than other cases where there don't appear to be these types of odd issues.

Based on this unusual situation, we are allowing members to post their theories on what they think is going on, but...

• Sillybilly

• 

Just highlighting...

'Based on this unusual situation, we are allowing members to post their theories on what they think is going on, but please limit your wording so that you are NOT making direct accusations. IOW, it's fine to say things like "well, I find such and such really, really odd" or "I wonder why she/he said such and such" but avoid making strong statements, saying things like "oh, no doubt he/she is hiding something" or "it's pretty clear he/she did such and such" etc etc.'

 

[sunshineray]

Find it deeply unbelievable that these doors in this clunky, unkempt trailer were opening noiselessly. Seriously, this case gives me a hedache. On one hand DM seems to really care about these kids and their vanishing (if he is pretending hand him the Academy Award), on the other, the stories about how the kids went missing, from both parents, sound very, very iffy. The noiseless door, the kids closing them carefully behind themselves, none of the parents getting up to actually check what the kids were doing in the kitchen... That's just... No.

Add to it the fact nothing was found, no backpack, no boots and kids lose the wellies super easily... And the doubts are growing.

I was coming home from dropping my child off at school one early morning and as I was parking my car my neighbor across the street front door opened. Their 3 yr old daughter came out and shut the door behind her. She took off running down the street (on the sidewalk, it's a fairly busy road in the morning). I got out of my car and ran after her, she'd run a good 1/4 mile before I caught up with her and calmly convinced her to hold my hand and walk back home with me. Their door was locked and I had to pound on it quite a few times before her mother, with a baby in arms, came to the door. So it can happen where a child slips out unnoticed closing the door behind them. The Mom looked exhausted, she never uttered a word to me, the little girl went in and Mom closed the door in my face.

 

[TMich6811]

If it was intentional and the missing story is just that...why this particular narrative? As other posters have mentioned it would have been much less suspect to have said the sliding door was left open..or even go further and say you woke to find them both missing. Why provide a back story of bot seeing one child all morning, staying in bed until 10am etc which opens the parents up to intense scrutiny? I just don't get it

So many questions

Or they just have no idea at all what happened/dont want to remember because they were so out of it that they woke up and found an empty house, closed door and assigned this story

 

[iamafiusny]

Find it deeply unbelievable that these doors in this clunky, unkempt trailer were opening noiselessly. Seriously, this case gives me a hedache. On one hand DM seems to really care about these kids and their vanishing (if he is pretending hand him the Academy Award), on the other, the stories about how the kids went missing, from both parents, sound very, very iffy. The noiseless door, the kids closing them carefully behind themselves, none of the parents getting up to actually check what the kids were doing in the kitchen... That's just... No.

Add to it the fact nothing was found, no backpack, no boots and kids lose the wellies super easily... And the doubts are growing.

It's interesting how differently we all read the parents.

I've seen most people say the mom seems "off", but I felt like I saw genuine tears at least once in her statement and she sucks her lips in like she wanted to say something but stopped herself.

Doesn't mean she's not responsible/guilty, but I feel like there is real regret there.

DM, on the other hand, really disturbs me. He's always so clean and well groomed, posing for photos while the kids are missing. He's talked almost entirely about himself instead of pushing the kids front and center. He's made several comments about being the only one fighting for them, while over 160 trained professionals put themselves through physical and emotional stress looking for kids he couldn't be bothered to set eyes on by 10am.

His phrasing of the kids "being easy to take" makes my skin crawl. Even if you did worry they'd be easily swayed there seems a kinder way to express that.

Both parent seemed to have rehearsed stories and bounce back and forth between the kids being lost and wet or certain they'd been abducted.

And neither parent has referred to the kids by name much, typically saying "they" or "those kids".

Of course it's all hard to say without knowing what they're like day to day, but those are my initial impressions.

I agree about the rest. The door and zero evidence don't really make sense.


Moo

 

[AIGT]

In my opinion - the way I have seen the RCMP use Martell or lack of use him and how it seems they didn’t at least try bring MBM back to the area (IMO she lawyered up anyways) to help makes me think RCMP fairly quickly had reason to believe it wasn’t just a case of children walking off. Think about all of the inconsistencies or weird things we have noticed from a few interviews. Now X that by 1000 for how many the RCMP will notice in their first hour trying to nail down just the timeline while asking follow up questions. I also mentioned before how in my opinion RCMP wouldn’t have brought in SAR outside of the RCMP until they had reason to believe the parents story was off.

If RCMP believed the parents then I would think they would want those parents as close to them as possible because they would know the land best, little unknown spots, the kids tendencies when in each area etc. MBM is basically unavailable because she’s not on site and cell reception is poor. And then there is a couple things I have noticed that lead me to think Martell wasn’t kept close once the large search began:

Something interesting from the dispatch logs is that there is a large amount of times where the person at the SAR headquarters gate is radioing in to say Martell is at the gate looking to speak to RCMP - and asking what they should do, if he’s scheduled for a briefing etc. This happens multiple times.

On one hand I can see a concerned parent showing up every 5 minutes hoping for an update so I can’t fault him.

But operationally I do find it odd. I would think there would be a liaison officer who the family has a direct line to or when considering poor cell service an area that Martell would know he can go straight to to speak to a specific RCMP officer. In all of these communications it appears the person at the gate is caught off guard by Martell showing up and even nervous about what they are supposed to tell Martell. (It should be noted that this person is not RCMP they are one of the volunteers).

In my opinion it appears that they were keeping Martell at an arms length (which isn’t that surprising).

There’s also footage from msm that shows RCMP and SAR leaders meeting with Martell and his family just prior to the press conference, showing the map of the searched places and it appears to me that they are talking to them to so they can have the information they’re about to say at the press conference first ie scaling back etc. - some of his family appears to be upset/crying. It’s obviously normal and respectful to tell them before the press conference but I think there’s been an extra effort to keep Martell a bit out of the loop which they would only do if they felt it was different than the kids just walking away.

 

[CityKid]

Apologies in advance for gabbling. It's early morning here in the UK and ive slept pretty poorly for the last few nights. But jumping on this..I've thought a lot about an accident following which the children were reported "missing" to cover up the fact...but then my mind wonders what accident could have occurred which would involve both children? I'm struggling to come up with answers for that....I could very easily see an accident happening to one child, but surely if they wanted to hide that it would be much easier to disappear that child alone..why both?

It kind of makes me want to rule out the accident theory but then what are we left with? The children wandering off voluntarily (but there just seems too many red flags for this)? An abduction (although LE seemed to rule this out pretty quickly)? Or the children coming to deliberate harm and an attempt to hide that fact?...but again this raises questions. What could possibly have gone on to cause two children to be harmed? Why not all three children? Is it because it would be harder to explain away a 16 month old disappearing? Does the parentage of the older children play a part I.e they are not DMs bio children?

If it was intentional and the missing story is just that...why this particular narrative? As other posters have mentioned it would have been much less suspect to have said the sliding door was left open..or even go further and say you woke to find them both missing. Why provide a back story of bot seeing one child all morning, staying in bed until 10am etc which opens the parents up to intense scrutiny? I just don't get it

So many questions

BBM. MOO (and I'm not sure if I'm even leaning this way in this case), but children could ingest medication/illegal drugs if they're left within reach and there's not enough adult supervision.

 

[Chimera]

I apologize if I missed this, as this thread has been moving so quickly and I've been unable to keep up the last few days - but have Mom and/or Stepdad been named POIs yet, opening us up to speculation about them? TiA

I agree. Very confused about some of the things allowed on this thread…no one in this case has been named a POI.

MOO.

At this time, the discussion has been fueled mainly by what's available in msm.
People are asking legitimate questions, and indeed I'd be amazed if they did not wonder about some statements like the sleeping in until around 10 am.
With two young children and a toddler that's almost impossible.

Those of us here who have grown kids and those here with littles can attest to that.
The disappearance of little Jack and Lilly is odd at best.
And so sad.

Their photos show two adorable kiddies and Lilly looks like she's bubbly and curious while Jack appears to be a boy who'd be busy all the time !
Imo.
Omo.

 

[Hexe]

So it can happen where a child slips out unnoticed closing the door behind them.

Of course it can happen. But it is infinitely easier to just slam the normal, swinging door on your way out, than close an old sliding door.

In this particular case we have two kids with habit of not closing that door, as claimed by DM and a door that, according to the mother, was not making any noise (or not enough noise to be heard in the bedroom) while being closed. Looking at overall condition of that camper it is hard to believe that.

 

[iamafiusny]

In my opinion - the way I have seen the RCMP use Martell or lack of use him and how it seems they didn’t at least try bring MBM back to the area (IMO she lawyered up anyways) to help makes me think RCMP fairly quickly had reason to believe it wasn’t just a case of children walking off. Think about all of the inconsistencies or weird things we have noticed from a few interviews. Now X that by 1000 for how many the RCMP will notice in their first hour trying to nail down just the timeline while asking follow up questions. I also mentioned before how in my opinion RCMP wouldn’t have brought in SAR outside of the RCMP until they had reason to believe the parents story was off.

If RCMP believed the parents then I would think they would want those parents as close to them as possible because they would know the land best, little unknown spots, the kids tendencies when in each area etc. MBM is basically unavailable because she’s not on site and cell reception is poor. And then there is a couple things I have noticed that lead me to think Martell wasn’t kept close once the large search began:

Something interesting from the dispatch logs is that there is a large amount of times where the person at the SAR headquarters gate is radioing in to say Martell is at the gate looking to speak to RCMP - and asking what they should do, if he’s scheduled for a briefing etc. This happens multiple times.

On one hand I can see a concerned parent showing up every 5 minutes hoping for an update so I can’t fault him.

But operationally I do find it odd. I would think there would be a liaison officer who the family has a direct line to or when considering poor cell service an area that Martell would know he can go straight to to speak to a specific RCMP officer. In all of these communications it appears the person at the gate is caught off guard by Martell showing up and even nervous about what they are supposed to tell Martell. (It should be noted that this person is not RCMP they are one of the volunteers).

In my opinion it appears that they were keeping Martell at an arms length (which isn’t that surprising).

There’s also footage from msm that shows RCMP and SAR leaders meeting with Martell and his family just prior to the press conference, showing the map of the searched places and it appears to me that they are talking to them to so they can have the information they’re about to say at the press conference first ie scaling back etc. - some of his family appears to be upset/crying. It’s obviously normal and respectful to tell them before the press conference but I think there’s been an extra effort to keep Martell a bit out of the loop which they would only do if they felt it was different than the kids just walking away.

Interesting regarding the dispatch logs. I also got the impression he was trying to insert himself in the search and being kept out of the loop just based on things he said.

Moo

 

[Hexe]

It's interesting how differently we all read the parents.

I've seen most people say the mom seems "off", but I felt like I saw genuine tears at least once in her statement and she sucks her lips in like she wanted to say something but stopped herself.

Doesn't mean she's not responsible/guilty, but I feel like there is real regret there.

DM, on the other hand, really disturbs me. He's always so clean and well groomed, posing for photos while the kids are missing.

I do not consider a worn t-shirt and unshaven face a particularly good grooming but it just me.

He's talked almost entirely about himself instead of pushing the kids front and center.

Have we read different interviews? He was talking about these children a lot, about their personalities, likes and dislikes, while the mother said nothing. And I don't buy that the police forbade her from doing that.

He's made several comments about being the only one fighting for them, while over 160 trained professionals put themselves through physical and emotional stress looking for kids he couldn't be bothered to set eyes on by 10am.

Their actual mother wasn't bothered to do that either AND she did not search at all after that initial checkup of the house. <modsnip: Personalizing toward other members is not allowed>

And neither parent has referred to the kids by name much, typically saying "they" or "those kids".

DM did, as far as I remember.

 

[CityKid]

Isn't passive negligence a thoroughly active choice by caregivers? MO

Not always. Not saying that this applies to this case, but forgetting to double-bolt the front door and not realizing your child was strong enough to open the lower lock is different from choosing to leave both locks open so your child can freely go from the house to the backyard.

 

[Chimera]

Apologies in advance for gabbling. It's early morning here in the UK and ive slept pretty poorly for the last few nights. But jumping on this..I've thought a lot about an accident following which the children were reported "missing" to cover up the fact...but then my mind wonders what accident could have occurred which would involve both children? I'm struggling to come up with answers for that....I could very easily see an accident happening to one child, but surely if they wanted to hide that it would be much easier to disappear that child alone..why both?

It kind of makes me want to rule out the accident theory but then what are we left with? The children wandering off voluntarily (but there just seems too many red flags for this)? An abduction (although LE seemed to rule this out pretty quickly)? Or the children coming to deliberate harm and an attempt to hide that fact?...but again this raises questions. What could possibly have gone on to cause two children to be harmed? Why not all three children? Is it because it would be harder to explain away a 16 month old disappearing? Does the parentage of the older children play a part I.e they are not DMs bio children?

If it was intentional and the missing story is just that...why this particular narrative? As other posters have mentioned it would have been much less suspect to have said the sliding door was left open..or even go further and say you woke to find them both missing. Why provide a back story of bot seeing one child all morning, staying in bed until 10am etc which opens the parents up to intense scrutiny? I just don't get it

So many questions

Bbm.
I totally agree.
This is so baffling.

Regarding the bolded bit : Ingested something ?
And not necessarily cleaning products like drain cleaner.
Outside of that, it's not like one of them would fall from climbing a fence and for the exact same accident to happen to the other child !
So, what the heck happened, then ?
Imo.
Sorry you've been sleeping poorly, and hope you can get better rest soon !

 

[FansBlowing]

They could have given them some medicine to make them sleep, thinking it was safe, and then they both overdosed.

 

[sar2them1984]

Bbm.
I totally agree.
This is so baffling.

Regarding the bolded bit : Ingested something ?
And not necessarily cleaning products like drain cleaner.
Outside of that, it's not like one of them would fall from climbing a fence and for the exact same accident to happen to the other child !
So, what the heck happened, then ?
Imo.
Sorry you've been sleeping poorly, and hope you can get better rest soon !

You raise a good point. Accidently, the only plausible theory I can come up with is ingesting something. IMO if there was an accident involving both of them, that is the only thing I can think of.

Could link I'm with the mom cutting contact with DM if she held him accountable. I.e it was something of his they ingested and could possibly lead us to believe that up to then. Ie them being in bedroom, kids playing in kitchen etc being true

 

[iamafiusny]

I do not consider a worn t-shirt and unshaven face a particularly good grooming but it just me.



Have we read different interviews? He was talking about these children a lot, about their personalities, likes and dislikes, while the mother said nothing. And I don't buy that the police forbade her from doing that.



Their actual mother wasn't bothered to do that either AND she did not search at all after that initial checkup of the house. <modsnip: Personalizing toward other members is not allowed>



DM did, as far as I remember.

<modsnip: Quoted post was modsnipped re personalizing toward other members>

I'm not cutting mom "lots and lots" of slack. I just have more to base opinions on because DM has been in front of the camera more. The police could not forbid her from speaking, but they might have suggested it.

I remember him saying the children's names, and discussing a few of their likes in his first (or one of his first) interviews. After that it's been how he's searching everywhere, he's asked for polygraph, etc.

And he is always clean, crisp clothing, jewelry on and even the nape of his neck has been shaved.

I could absolutely believe mom has a better support system and he's left floundering on his own, but I definitely do not agree with your original statements regarding DM (I do respect them though!).

Jmo

 

[Chimera]

In my opinion - the way I have seen the RCMP use Martell or lack of use him and how it seems they didn’t at least try bring MBM back to the area (IMO she lawyered up anyways) to help makes me think RCMP fairly quickly had reason to believe it wasn’t just a case of children walking off. Think about all of the inconsistencies or weird things we have noticed from a few interviews. Now X that by 1000 for how many the RCMP will notice in their first hour trying to nail down just the timeline while asking follow up questions. I also mentioned before how in my opinion RCMP wouldn’t have brought in SAR outside of the RCMP until they had reason to believe the parents story was off.

If RCMP believed the parents then I would think they would want those parents as close to them as possible because they would know the land best, little unknown spots, the kids tendencies when in each area etc. MBM is basically unavailable because she’s not on site and cell reception is poor. And then there is a couple things I have noticed that lead me to think Martell wasn’t kept close once the large search began:

Something interesting from the dispatch logs is that there is a large amount of times where the person at the SAR headquarters gate is radioing in to say Martell is at the gate looking to speak to RCMP - and asking what they should do, if he’s scheduled for a briefing etc. This happens multiple times.

On one hand I can see a concerned parent showing up every 5 minutes hoping for an update so I can’t fault him.

But operationally I do find it odd. I would think there would be a liaison officer who the family has a direct line to or when considering poor cell service an area that Martell would know he can go straight to to speak to a specific RCMP officer. In all of these communications it appears the person at the gate is caught off guard by Martell showing up and even nervous about what they are supposed to tell Martell. (It should be noted that this person is not RCMP they are one of the volunteers).

In my opinion it appears that they were keeping Martell at an arms length (which isn’t that surprising).

There’s also footage from msm that shows RCMP and SAR leaders meeting with Martell and his family just prior to the press conference, showing the map of the searched places and it appears to me that they are talking to them to so they can have the information they’re about to say at the press conference first ie scaling back etc. - some of his family appears to be upset/crying. It’s obviously normal and respectful to tell them before the press conference but I think there’s been an extra effort to keep Martell a bit out of the loop which they would only do if they felt it was different than the kids just walking away.

Interesting post, thanks. ^^^
Much of this is new to me.

If the kids going missing wasn't noticed until 10 am that's odd and concerning -- littles are noisy in the morning, esp. after they've had breakfast !
Even if it was around 8 am-- most parents of small kids have to get up much earlier.
Imo.

 

[thispersonj]

It's interesting how differently we all read the parents.

I've seen most people say the mom seems "off", but I felt like I saw genuine tears at least once in her statement and she sucks her lips in like she wanted to say something but stopped herself.

Doesn't mean she's not responsible/guilty, but I feel like there is real regret there.

DM, on the other hand, really disturbs me. He's always so clean and well groomed, posing for photos while the kids are missing. He's talked almost entirely about himself instead of pushing the kids front and center. He's made several comments about being the only one fighting for them, while over 160 trained professionals put themselves through physical and emotional stress looking for kids he couldn't be bothered to set eyes on by 10am.

His phrasing of the kids "being easy to take" makes my skin crawl. Even if you did worry they'd be easily swayed there seems a kinder way to express that.

Both parent seemed to have rehearsed stories and bounce back and forth between the kids being lost and wet or certain they'd been abducted.

And neither parent has referred to the kids by name much, typically saying "they" or "those kids".

Of course it's all hard to say without knowing what they're like day to day, but those are my initial impressions.

I agree about the rest. The door and zero evidence don't really make sense.


Moo

I disagree in that I think the mom's interview raises the most red flags and, in my opinion, she's showing very little emotion because she's using 100% of her mental energy to recount a particular storyline. That, or she's on a strong medication. Either way, the things she's saying don't add up, like "... they were outside playing but we weren't aware of it at the time ..." That interview, for me, was so mind blowing, it's the reason I sought out this forum.

But I've been looking for an excuse to say the following and, dang it, I'm taking it.

I know we all have our own opinions, obviously, but I'm having trouble understanding the sheer number of people saying the stepdad's words seem heartfelt. In every one, he is constantly shaking his head and keeping the same facial expression—like it's a default setting. The rare, small, emotive outbursts come at the weirdest times, like when he talks about a man in military fatigues coming out of the woods, for instance, or when he's talking about his own actions in the search. He refers to Jack and Lilly as "two little kids" or "the children," like he's avoiding their names. The past tense. Like, I cannot count the ways.

To me, it seems like DM can't talk about the kids and display emotion at the same time. He talks about wanting to prove people online wrong (who would be remotely concerned with that at this moment?) and about running through dense woods ahead of drones and all of his heroics. No words to the children? Their abductor? Your wishes? Concerns? WHAT THE HECK.

 

[dotr]

The business model of lies, gossip and misinformation about Jack and Lilly Sullivan on social media

The horror at the disappearance of two children from Pictou County is turning into something ugly on social media – profit and obsession.

www.saltwire.com