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

[MistyWaters]

Does Middle Sackville mean that it was a middle school and not an elementary school?

No, Middle Sackville is a community.

 

[AIGT]

Scott said she was given a USB drive to load her trail camera footage onto. She was initially asked to give them her footage from May 1 to May 3, but they later expanded their request to include April 27 to May 3.
[snip]
CBC News requested an interview with RCMP and asked specific questions including why they are seeking trail camera footage from prior to the children's disappearance and why they are identifying local vehicles.

The RCMP declined the interview request and a spokesperson pointed to the most recent news release from May 18, which provided some details of the latest search efforts.

"To ensure the integrity of the investigation, no further details will be released at this time," said Cpl. Carlie McCann.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova...up-to-disappearance-of-n-s-children-1.7540886

I still have faith that the RCMP knows more and is strategically working the case behind the scenes.
I would be lying if I didn’t say that this article had some things in it that put a bit of doubt into my mind for the first time about how this investigation is going. MOO

 

[Skigh]

RCMP must have a video of the road and traffic near this area - from a business, store, gas station or homeowner. If they can eliminate identifying the neighbors cars, then they can focus on all the other cars.

They could also want to see which locals were out driving and when and where they went.

 

[FansBlowing]

In this video, you can clearly see that this neighbor has one of her trail cams pointed to the street. RCMP will be able to see all cars that went by and when. It says that two of her other neighbors also provided footage.

 

[Sarahlou]

They could also want to see which locals were out driving and when and where they went.

Yes. The fact they want footage from days before the kids were reported missing shows they want to see the movements of certain people. I'd be worried if they weren't checking that!

 

[shetalksinstereo]

I grew up in a neighborhood where all of us kids would play outside every day. Including young kindergarten aged kids. We loved exploring the (3-5 inch deep) drainage creek that ran down behind our houses and spent many hours there. And most of the kids wore boots as their daily wear, better for muddy creek playing. To me, the idea these kids just wanted to play outside is so believable. I remember one time being so excited at their ages to go further down the creek than I had before, and feeling so adventurous.

And I’m not that old! I’m in my 20s!

I mentioned this too - we played in a creek, that was not an actual creek, but the storm run off culvert. But, it was the 70s and things were different then!

 

[EnigmaticEpiphany]

All kinds of wildlife in the area that could have piqued the interests of young children. I know they took their bookbags, but the oldest could have had the forethought to take it to make their parents think they went to school.

 

[tlcya]

They could also want to see which locals were out driving and when and where they went.

Any video of the comings and goings in the general area could also be very useful, not only in determining who was in the vicinity and when, but who WASN'T if you follow my drift.

 

[Skigh]

In this video, you can clearly see that this neighbor has one of her trail cams pointed to the street. RCMP will be able to see all cars that went by and when. It says that two of her other neighbors also provided footage.

I do not understand why it has taken them so long to ask for trail camera footage. It does not inspire confidence in their investigations.

 

[FansBlowing]

This neighbor is pretty far away at 8 kilometers or about 5 miles. Maybe RCMP expanded their search from roughly 5 miles to 10 miles? They could have already gotten footage from closer neighbors. Or they might already have a vehicle on other footage that they want to follow that went in this direction.

 

[Skigh]

This neighbor is pretty far away at 8 kilometers or about 5 miles. Maybe RCMP expanded their search from roughly 5 miles to 10 miles? They could have already gotten footage from closer neighbors. Or they might already have a vehicle on other footage that they want to follow that went in this direction.

Thanks. I had not picked up that she was 5 miles away.

 

[borndem]

Welcome to Websleuths,
Veridex !!​

​

 

[tlcya]

Maybe their request for trail cams is focused on that area of Glengarry Station (east of the children's home) for a reason. Perhaps RCMP is recreating DM's self reported frantic initial search for the children screaming their names and wading through waist high water and culverts and checking dirt back roads.

 

[AIGT]

Thanks. I had not picked up that she was 5 miles away.

It’s not. It says she is 5km not miles away. There’s also not a large amount of neighbours so I think it’s odd they hadn’t been there sooner.

The comment that she says they made “we probably should’ve came sooner” seems more like throwing shade on other investigators than taking accountability imo.

Also not a good look that they weren’t showing up knowing the dates they wanted footage for.

There could be a reason why they wanted to wait to canvas the cameras if they had reason to believe that they might catch something on it taking place after all the chaos had calmed down and potential suspects become a bit more confident.

Still have faith but the RCMP better hope they are hiding the ball for investigative reasons and not because they don’t have any answers.

All IMO

 

[borndem]

Wow. Odd priority for the mother of missing children. IMO.

You said it, IzzyB,
What happened to those sweet children, and where are they? Missing for 20 days. :- (

 

[Foyo]

In my opinion, the most likely explanation is that Lily and Jack wandered off on their own. At their age, it’s very common for children to follow a curiosity — an animal, an object, or simply a desire to explore — without realizing how far they’ve gone. If the surrounding area includes woods, fields, or water, they could have gotten lost or stuck somewhere out of sight.
Another possibility, though less likely, is that someone picked them up. If a stranger or even someone familiar saw them alone, they might have taken them, either with harmful intent or under the illusion of helping. This theory becomes more plausible if there’s no physical trace of them nearby
A rare but possible scenario involves a family member. Sometimes, during custody disputes or family tensions, a parent or relative may take the children without informing anyone. There’s no mention of that here, but it’s a factor worth considering if no evidence of wandering is founded
Lastly, a natural hazard can’t be ruled out — a fall, an animal encounter, or sudden injury could prevent them from returning or responding to searchers.

 

[Jenna80]

Years ago here on websleuths, we had a queen of maps. Does anyone recall her name? It would be great to have her, or someone good with maps on this thread

 

[Muddy K]

Years ago here on websleuths, we had a queen of maps. Does anyone recall her name? It would be great to have her, or someone good with maps on this thread

Could you be thinking of the incredible skibaboo, by any chance?

 

[AIGT]

In my opinion, the most likely explanation is that Lily and Jack wandered off on their own. At their age, it’s very common for children to follow a curiosity — an animal, an object, or simply a desire to explore — without realizing how far they’ve gone. If the surrounding area includes woods, fields, or water, they could have gotten lost or stuck somewhere out of sight.
Another possibility, though less likely, is that someone picked them up. If a stranger or even someone familiar saw them alone, they might have taken them, either with harmful intent or under the illusion of helping. This theory becomes more plausible if there’s no physical trace of them nearby
A rare but possible scenario involves a family member. Sometimes, during custody disputes or family tensions, a parent or relative may take the children without informing anyone. There’s no mention of that here, but it’s a factor worth considering if no evidence of wandering is founded
Lastly, a natural hazard can’t be ruled out — a fall, an animal encounter, or sudden injury could prevent them from returning or responding to searchers.

IMO - When you look at the overall scenario and everything we know, from statements to timelines to searches, and everything in between - Them wandering off is the least likely scenario. Although it might be tied with stranger abduction.

 

[TMich6811]

I think the change in dates is purely because they realized they hadn’t been seen. Extended days may have been to gather patterns, see peoples normals, to see if people were scoping out certain areas or to not give the world specifics when the person realizing the images was interviewed by media or on social media