CANADA Canada - Jack, 4 & Lilly Sullivan, 6, Vulnerable, wandered from home 10am, Gairloch Rd, Landsdowne Station, Pictou County, NS, 2 May 2025 #5

[RandyMcDonald]

i agree, we don’t know what happened. Just to make one comment, being ‘missing’ is not a crime and so if by a remote chance someone does have care of these children it’s not as if they’re harbouring fugitives or hiding illegal aliens, especially if MBM made the arrangements and had sole custody of the children. It’s curious why the RCMP has never diverged from this being a ‘missing children investigation’.
JMO

I would suggest that it is because they either do not know what has happened or because they do know and do not want to give away their hand.

Someone who hid the children away would be in quite a lot of trouble.

If it was the mother who did it, hiding her children with distant relatives and not telling anyone that there was no need for a high-profile and labour-intensive search for missing children in the wilderness, this is the sort of misbehaviour that could plausibly result in criminal charges and a loss of custody. Never mind that doing this would be the sort of thing that would blow up all her social relationships. What would family and friends not in on this think of her?

If this was the band council ... I would not be surprised if the spectre of two missing indigenous children deeply resonated with indigenous people generally across Canada. Jack and Lily trigger two very sensitive wounds: They are children who are of the same age as many indigenous children who had been sent to residential schools, and they are also missing indigenous people. If the Sipekne'katik band council actually knew that the children were safe and sound and told no one for ... reasons, this would blow up their relations with the band members. How would three thousand people respond to the news that their leaders actually knew all along that the children were fine but chose not to tell anyone for ... reasons? This would have huge political and legal repercussions, and again would also have huge social repercussions for the individuals involved.

This sort of hiding would only be imaginable if, somehow, the costs of doing this were worth it. I honestly do not know what sort of scenario could justify that. How would incurring the massive costs associated with a coverup of this scale possibly be justifiable, even to someone not in their right mind?

 

[MistyWaters]

I would suggest that it is because they either do not know what has happened or because they do know and do not want to give away their hand.

Someone who hid the children away would be in quite a lot of trouble.

If it was the mother who did it, hiding her children with distant relatives and not telling anyone that there was no need for a high-profile and labour-intensive search for missing children in the wilderness, this is the sort of misbehaviour that could plausibly result in criminal charges. Never mind that doing this would be the sort of thing that would blow up all her social relationships. What would family and friends not in on this think of her?

If this was the band council ... I would not be surprised if the spectre of two missing indigenous children deeply resonated with indigenous people generally across Canada. Jack and Lily trigger two very sensitive wounds: They are children who are of the same age as many indigenous children who had been sent to residential schools, and they are also missing indigenous people. If the Sipekne'katik band council actually knew that the children were safe and sound and told no one for ... reasons, this would blow up their relations with the band members. How would three thousand people respond to the news that their leaders actually knew all along that the children were fine but chose not to tell anyone for ... reasons? This would have huge political and legal repercussions, and again would also have huge social repercussions for the individuals involved.

This sort of hiding would only be imaginable if, somehow, the costs of doing this were worth it. I honestly do not know what sort of scenario could justify that. How would incurring the massive costs associated with a coverup of this scale possibly be justifiable, even to someone not in their right mind?

I can’t speak for the possible motivation of anyone, or if this hypothetical situation falls under the umbrella of the RCMP “exploring all possibilities”. However I do think it’s curious why the RCMP has avoided any reference to undertaking a criminal investigation. Sometimes it almost seems as if they’re intent on assuring somebody out there that they haven’t broken any laws.
JMO

 

[RandyMcDonald]

I can’t speak for the possible motivation of anyone, or if this hypothetical situation falls under the umbrella of the RCMP “exploring all possibilities”.

Right.

I would just say that if the children are living with a third party who has for whatever reason chosen not to let the people looking for dead children in the woods that things are actually fine, this is much closer to being a kidnapping by a third party than anything else. How could these children possibly lead a normal life if they are being hidden and everyone outside their small circles thinks them dead? Why would someone do that to Jack and Lily?

 

[MistyWaters]

Right.

I would just say that if the children are living with a third party who has for whatever reason chosen not to let the people looking for dead children in the woods that things are actually fine, this is much closer to being a kidnapping by a third party than anything else. How could these children possibly lead a normal life if they are being hidden and everyone outside their small circles thinks them dead? Why would someone do that to Jack and Lily?

If as MBM arranged for her children to be cared for by a third party, related or not, IMO it’s not a kidnapping as the children were not ‘stolen’ from her. Nor would this likely be a lifelong situation depending on her motivation. However if that’s what occurred her offence would likely involve fabricating/lying to LE. In Canada I’m not sure how serious that would be especially considering Gladeau principles.
JMO

Abduction of a Young Person (s. 280 - 286) Laws in Canada | Strategic Criminal Defence FAQ

What is the Abduction of a Young Person in Canada? Abducting a young person is criminalized under sections 280-286 of the Canadian Criminal Code within Part VIII – Kidnapping, Trafficking in Persons, Hostage Taking and Abduction. There are essentially four categories or ‘classifications’ of...

www.strategiccriminaldefence.com

Generally, to abduct someone in Canada means to take them against someone else’s will. These cases are common in the context of family or domestic disputes (e.g., children being taken by their own parents). Abduction is different from kidnapping whereas abduction means to ‘steal’ the person from another and kidnapping means to ‘steal’ the person generally (see: R v Oakley, 1977 ALTASCAD 118 (CanLII)). Abduction in Canada has more to do with the removal or taking of a child from their parents/guardians whereas kidnapping casts a wider net over offences against the person. How one might be charged with the abduction of a young person will depend on the age of the victim, the relationship the victim has to the offender and the circumstances surrounding the victim’s abduction.

 

[MistyWaters]

A little background on Kinship Care.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/11771801231189842

Kinship care has particular significance for Indigenous peoples in Canada because it is the way through which communities traditionally ensured children were looked after and the roles and responsibilities around raising children were shared (Baskin, 2022; de Finney & di Tomasso, 2015; Mann-Johnson, 2016). The devastating impacts of colonialism, which included the removal of Indigenous children from their kinship circles and their placement in residential schools and foster homes, have been well documented (TRC, 2015a, 2015b). As Indigenous communities have continued to heal from these experiences, they have undertaken the difficult task of rebuilding the systems that cared for their children.

 

[RandyMcDonald]

If as MBM arranged for her children to be cared for by a third party, related or not, IMO it’s not a kidnapping as the children were not ‘stolen’ from her. Nor would this likely be a lifelong situation depending on her motivation. However if that’s what occurred her offence would likely involve fabricating/lying to LE. In Canada I’m not sure how serious that would be especially considering Gladeau principles.

Inasmuch as Jack and Lily are currently believed to be dead, possibly as a result of criminal activity, I really do not understand how hiding perfectly fine children from everyone including legal authorities would not be potentially criminal, This would be a huge violation of the norms of indigenous culture: Authority figures pretending that living children who were the subject of a community search were actually dead would not at all be behaving in ways that Mi'kmaq or any other indigenous group would call responsible.

I get why you would like the children to be alive. If you are working with scenarios where the people involved would have to radically violate their own norms for no obvious gain, I would suggest that these scenarios are not valid. What would these authorities have to gain from doing this, especially with so many obvious losses?

And ultimately, if the children are being hid from the wider world by someone who thinks this is in their interest, how is this meaningfully different from the idea of the children having been kidnapped?

 

[AddyFinch]

Another hypothetical discussion stimulator! The “children wandered into woods or road” option.
.
But what if they wandered to the roadside?
Here are 2 possibilities. Someone picked them up. Maybe someone who happened by, and saw their chance to harm the children, or sell them. I find the chance of this to be remote, just like the area they lived in is remote. The other option is one or both children were hit by a car. I have a personal hunch that many unsolved missing persons cases are the result of someone accidentally hitting someone with a car, panicking, and disposing of the evidence. So maybe someone hit one or both children. If the children did head to the roadside, I believe “hit by a car” is a more likely scenario than “abducted by a predator who happened by at the exact right moment”. I hope the trained dogs were taken a certain distance down that road in both directions, to sniff out the potential for an accident scene.

I agree….if no one observed, no other car came along, no blood on asphalt, and scent dogs used. Pick their little bodies up, and drive away. There is a slight curve near their house. If the house occupants were out like lights, they might never have heard a thing. I don’t think there are any immediate neighbours.

 

[MistyWaters]

Inasmuch as Jack and Lily are currently believed to be dead, possibly as a result of criminal activity, I really do not understand how hiding perfectly fine children from everyone including legal authorities would not be potentially criminal, This would be a huge violation of the norms of indigenous culture: Authority figures pretending that living children who were the subject of a community search were actually dead would not at all be behaving in ways that Mi'kmaq or any other indigenous group would call responsible.

I get why you would like the children to be alive. If you are working with scenarios where the people involved would have to radically violate their own norms for no obvious gain, I would suggest that these scenarios are not valid. What would these authorities have to gain from doing this, especially with so many obvious losses?

And ultimately, if the children are being hid from the wider world by someone who thinks this is in their interest, how is this meaningfully different from the idea of the children having been kidnapped?

The RCMP indeed only stated they believed Jack and Lilly to be dead after a week of searching the wilderness. But the highly publicized search found no evidence they’d wandered into the wilderness and announcement of their deaths was certainly not a blanket statement. I indeed believe what the RCMP have stated…’all scenarios are being considered’.

I think you do understand this possible scenario is merely a theory which cannot be proven right or wrong at this time. No appeals let alone threats of legal consequences have made if anyone knows additional information about the children.

If infact their mother is aware of who’s tending to her children, I disagree that they are “being hid from the wider world”? This would be disregarding First Nations sovereignty and the inherent right of Indigenous nations to self-determination and self-governance over their territories, cultures, and affairs. They don’t wish for intrusion from the ‘wider world’ and that’s to be respected.
JMO

 

[RandyMcDonald]

The RCMP indeed only stated they believed Jack and Lilly to be dead after a week of searching the wilderness. But the highly publicized search found no evidence they’d wandered into the wilderness and announcement of their deaths was certainly not a blanket statement. I indeed believe what the RCMP have stated…’all scenarios are being considered’.

I think you do understand this possible scenario is merely a theory which cannot be proven right or wrong at this time. If infact their mother is aware of who’s tending to her children, I disagree that they are “being hid from the wider world”? This would be disregarding First Nations sovereignty and the inherent right of Indigenous nations to self-determination and self-governance over their territories, cultures, and affairs.
JMO

The indigenous right to self-determination does not mean that indigenous people would do anything they would imagine, never mind that they would want to do that. If someone was hiding the children from the people and agencies who expected that they were dead, this is not the sort of action that would be seen as moral by the Mi'kmaq. I'm willing to bet--bet a lot of money--that they would actually be pretty upset that the children were being hidden from their family and community, that whoever could have reassured everyone early on that the children were alive and that there was no need for a search let things blow up so hugely.

And we have to come to the question of why someone, or some group of people, would do this. Why would pretending Jack and Lily were, if not dead in the wilderness of Nova Scotian then victims of some predator somewhere, serve any purpose? Faking the death of the children and letting it continue on so long would cause great harm to the children; someone who held custody of the children who did this would find out this would be a great way to lose this custody.

If the RCMP has not explicitly excluded this scenario in the public, I think it is because it is so implausible. It would require people to do things that would be illegal and unethical by their own lights, to be able to hide them from an intense police investigation, to keep on doing these things to the point of irretrievable losses, and to do so for no obvious positive reasons.

 

[MistyWaters]

The indigenous right to self-determination does not mean that indigenous people would do anything they would imagine, never mind that they would want to do that. If someone was hiding the children from the people and agencies who expected that they were dead, this is not the sort of action that would be seen as moral by the Mi'kmaq. I'm willing to bet--bet a lot of money--that they would actually be pretty upset that the children were being hidden from their family and community, that whoever could have reassured everyone early on that the children were alive and that there was no need for a search let things blow up so hugely.

And we have to come to the question of why someone, or some group of people, would do this. Why would pretending Jack and Lily were, if not dead in the wilderness of Nova Scotian then victims of some predator somewhere, serve any purpose? Faking the death of the children and letting it continue on so long would cause great harm to the children; someone who held custody of the children who did this would find out this would be a great way to lose this custody.

If the RCMP has not explicitly excluded this scenario in the public, I think it is because it is so implausible. It would require people to do things that would be illegal and unethical by their own lights, to be able to hide them from an intense police investigation, to keep on doing these things to the point of irretrievable losses, and to do so for no obvious positive reasons.

Reason for his optimism?

Stepfather of missing N.S. children shares details of polygraph test

The stepfather of two missing children in Nova Scotia’s Pictou County says he took a polygraph test to help the police investigation.

www.ctvnews.ca

The children’s stepfather says he’s grateful for the investigators and the people who continue to share tips. He adds the family remains hopeful the children will return home safe.

“It’s kind of mind-boggling that there’s not been any evidence at all,” he said. “I appreciate every tip, but it kind of leaves a lot of room to the imagination of what really went on.

 

[BCSleuth]

Do we have an approved source for this alleged 6:18 AM text to the school? Where does this information come from?

 

[su5ie]

Do we have an approved source for this alleged 6:18 AM text to the school? Where does this information come from?

Source has been provided up thread . The statement came from the parents , it hasn't been independently verified to the media by the school , if I can find the link I will post . Otherwise you will have to slueth the 2 threads unfortunately

 

[Hexe]

I’m also troubled that this was the ONE time the kids had managed to close the door, as DM stated he’d yelled at them several times for leaving it open.

Before it grows it's own legs: DM never said he yelled at the kids, he said they had to be reminded to close that door behind themselves.

 

[su5ie]

We know from other cases when LE give a timeline and a narrative to events leading up to a disappearance, they leave out a whole chunk of stuff. reasons could be either it might put people off coming forward with information , it could put the kids in further danger in the case of abduction or reveal to potential suspects evidence in the case and most of the time these things are only mentioned by the media after its gone to court .

I was reading through the posts about the Mi'kmaq people's and the opinions on whether or not they would allow or condone for the children to be hidden within their community without imforming RCMP because of some high moral standing and because of harrowing past history with children been taken from them never to be seen again .

And I think this is where unconscious bias comes into play . Just because person's are from a minority grouping doesn't mean they are any different to the rest of society. This is how the them and us segregation carries forward into generations on both sides of the equation. We can respect how a minority group wants to govern themselves or carry out their customs and I know certain minorities and majorities prefer the us and them Usually self serving purposes imo because most don't want segregation but realistically we are all human and expierence the same disfunction or functions within our families. Alcoholism, sober lives , drug abuse college degrees ,DV , loving relationships, child abuses , celebrations of births and weddings ,broken relationships, unmarried mothers and fathers , crime etc .

If and its a big if ,the children were removed from the area into the care of the band for whatever reason . It has nothing to do with certain moral standards the Mi'kmaq people attain to live by . Just like within majority communities, there is family loyalties and no amount of society's moral standards will break those .

Most people would commit a crime if it was needed to help or protect their family . Most people if at risk of their family starving would steal a loaf of bread , don't matter that the law and our moral compass says we shouldn't.

So hypothetically if one of Maleyha's family members took the children with her knowledge it is out of loyalty to her ,not a moral duty to other band members imo

 

[derweezy]

Your theory has possibilities. Another hypothetical angle - IF biodad or one of his family members was preparing to commence legal action to primarily place Lilly and Jack under their care, using allegations MBM wasn’t capable of caring for the children adequately. I doubt the courts would rely on the common-in-law husband to be responsible for their wellbeing, rather than a biological relative on the paternal side.
JMO

the biological father is something I hadn't thought of, but it would explain a lot, DM being so casual and confident in his innocence, even defending the mother (her mental health being impacted). you would think that would be somehow addressed through the polygraph...do you know where the children are, or do you know who has them.....unless he truly doesn't know as this was arranged by MBM or someone else? Could be another factor as to why she isn't available to the media

 

[Slebby]

Before it grows it's own legs: DM never said he yelled at the kids, he said they had to be reminded to close that door behind themselves.

I’ll take your word for it. I must have assumed from my own parenting of my kids that when I had to repeatedly remind them not to do something, I yelled, lol.

*edit for clarity

 

[FansBlowing]

I hope RCMP have found out if anyone in the stepfather's or mother's family has a storage unit and looked there. I count ten self-storage places in New Glasgow.

 

[Chimera]

Daniel basically states it himself in the article

Martell says the silence inside his once busy home is deafening.


"Going from a family of seven to just me, I have nothing but time to just think," he said.


The emotional toll has left its mark on Martell, who has lost of custody of his daughter Meadow.

Thanks for the links.

I was under the impression that DM and MBM were a family of five, and DM's other children did not reside with them ?
Aside from that, though, I do want to believe DM -- but if he's correct, that makes me wonder if the mother, MBM, knows something ?
About DM , since he's the bio dad of baby M., he'd automatically have had custody already, correct ?
Whether or not he lived with MBM.
If I'm understanding this accurately.

One would like to think that Lilly and Jack were safely hidden away, but the longer this drags on the more doubtful that seems.
Imo.

 

[Chimera]

Am I understanding this correctly that the children were not in school on friday due to being sick, but they were well enough to be outside playing?

Outside of the family they were last seen on Tuesday?

Wednesday, no school for all. Thursday and Friday they were "out sick" but Friday morning is when they disappeared.

Do I have this rough timeline correct?

Good questions.

From reading past posts, it's said the kids were seen on camera or in public on May 1st, so they were seen the day before.
I'd asked in a previous post if they (DM, MBM, baby M. & the two missing kids) were seen on camera together later that day ?
I.e., did the kids return from town with the mom and boyfriend ?
Extra note : MBM and DM are not married so he isn't Lilly and Jack's stepdad as some msm claims-- DM is the mother's boyfriend.
Imo.

 

[Ontario Mom]

Do we have an approved source for this alleged 6:18 AM text to the school? Where does this information come from?

It came from a Globe & Mail link that was sitting behind a paywall. Although now it doesn't even come up in a general google search.