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

[tlcya]

at the 4:30 mark in the same CBC video, Cpl. Guillaume Tremblay is interviewed. The exchange is interesting.

reporter: was anything found in any of these searches that was deemed to be of significance? Even if you can't tell me what it was, ANYTHING of significance?

Cpl Tremblay: So I can tell you that the investigation is ongoing and that we haven't found any evidence to show that there was an abduction of the children.

MOO he did not actually answer her question. He sidestepped it and spoke only to whether any evidence leads LE to think of abduction. But that isn't what she asked. She specifically asked if there was ANY significant evidence found in any of their SEARCHES. He didn't mention the boot print we know spurred a search and he for sure didn't mention any other evidence of those children being in the woods has been found, such as a piece of Lily's blanket.

 

[AddyFinch]

exactly.

ETA once again, DM says a piece of Lilys blanket was found near the boot print. I assume this was teh partial boot print that was found on teh pipeline trail that runs some distance back in the woods behind the Martell property. LE has never confirmed if that boot print belongs to either child, but they investigated the area thoroughly based on the fact that it might be related. The radio chatter indicates the family (I have my thoughts on which member) brought searchers to a scrap of material. LE has said nothing about this scrap of material. Only DM says it was a piece of Lily's blanket.

Color me skeptical. I grow weary of having only one person's statements to rely upon and therefore I haven't been. . Others mileage may vary.

He left property and went searching for kids before LE arrived. It could be interpreted that he also contaminated the scene with his boots, or tires, or anything really.

 

[su5ie]

Rbm.
Agreed, that always sounded odd, imo.
Did they bring in a bowl of cereal and milk for her and she ate it on the bed ?
A bottle/sippy cup (some kids like that for drinking way into toddlerhood) ?
It's just that before 10 am I'd expect even an 18-month old to be up and busy playing.
Omo.

It's been said previously that prehaps the toddler was still being breastfed .

I would definitely expect a toddler to want to get up before 10am especially upon hearing siblings.

I wonder is it routine on school holidays ,days off for Daniel and Malehya to lie in with the toddler and jack and lilly are expected to be quiet to allow them to sleep in .

If they did I guess different families have different routines but the point I'm making is were lilly and jack just fed up that morning and wanted something exciting ? An adventure prehaps maybe Daniel promised to bring them to the cabin over the weekend if they were good while grocery shopping but they couldn't wait as they didn't know what time the parents would get up

I suppose if it was the norm for lilly and jack to be expierencing a situation were the parents might not get up till whatever time they happened to wake whether that be 10am or 2pm could the kids have thought they would be back before the parents got up

Would having a lie in and allowing a 4 and 6 year old watch TV be considered neglectful in Canada by cps ?

 

[AddyFinch]

LE can detain someone for no more than 24 hrs to investigate or get charges ready, but LE can not arrest anyone without reasonable and probable grounds.

 

[su5ie]

It's heartbreaking Lilly and Jack have not been found after all this time has passed.

My heart goes out to them if they experienced any trauma during or after their disappearance, and to their loved ones who must miss them immensely and be truly devastated.

As it's written in the title of this thread dedicated to following their disappearance:

"...Jack, 4 & Lilly Sullivan, 6, Vulnerable, wandered from home 10am..."

Underlying the heartbreak is a feeling of "what-in-God's-name-went-wrong" for these two very young children who were both "vulnerable" and "wandered from home 10am" presumably on their own, separately or together?

It makes me want to know why, how, when, and where LE thinks they were/are/have been put in a position of being "vulnerable" in terms of their well being and child safety in general.

Because of their young age & that they're presumed to have "wandered" off on their own, separately or together? And deep into the neighboring woods?

I guess I've answered my own question, <sigh>, looking up the Canada Justice Laws Website definition of vulnerable person: (BBM)

Criminal Records Act

Federal laws of Canada

laws-lois.justice.gc.ca

"Definition of vulnerable person

• 6.3 (1) In this section, vulnerable person means a person who, because of his or her age, a disability or other circumstances, whether temporary or permanent,
  • (a) is in a position of dependency on others; or
  • (b) is otherwise at a greater risk than the general population of being harmed by a person in a position of trust or authority towards them."

Holding out hope they will be found safe... and hindsight being 20-20, wishing "better" child safety measures had been in place to mitigate them being able to have "wandered from home" on their own or together at such a young and tender and vulnerable age.

I never even thought about them going separately, what if one wandered didn't come back and other followed .
That to me makes more sense than two kids walking out of the yard into the beyond together

 

[MistyWaters]

He left property and went searching for kids before LE arrived. It could be interpreted that he also contaminated the scene with his boots, or tires, or anything really.

Not one person has accused DM of contaminating the scene. It can’t be that people call 911 every single time their child is out of sight, more often than not 911 is called as a last resort. DM certainly would’ve informed searchers where he looked and they’d easily be able to recognize boot prints of a 4 and 6 year old and an adult.

Dare 911 tell a frantic parent to just sit still and not look for their missing child to avoid contaminating the scene, that would be presumptuous that the child wouldn’t be found. If a child fell and was injured minutes could be the difference between life and death. Especially in rural areas as it can’t be predicted how long it would take SAR to arrive.
JMO

 

[su5ie]

I’m bring this video back here

Around the 3 minute mark the reporter says Police say they found a boot print and listen to this in the radio chatter

Radio Chatter: Family has uh brought us to a location there uh not far away that uh there’s a par, piece of blanket

Reporter: Police won’t say anything about a blanket but Martell says a piece of Lillys blanket was found near the boot print


If this is true, why wouldn’t the police say anything about it?

Exactly and why would only a piece of lillys blanket be found . To me that suggests it was tugged very hard by someone or a dog bit into it and broke a piece off trying to pull the blanket from lilly

 

[TMich6811]

Re: bold by me

This is very odd to me. I raised 3 kids who never slept that late, my own grandchild is 18 months old and would be rocking and rolling with the older kids. I would think it more likely Meadow would be playing with J and L than lying in bed with DM and MBM. This feeds into my suspicion that, if the children really did get away on their own, they did so much earlier than reported by the parents.
What did the reality of that morning entail?
My opinion

Yes like maybe they were “sleeping” in bed with the child locked in there playing as a way to get some rest because parents with small kids have to survive but generally as a mom, that level of sleep is not so deep that you wouldn’t hear your other kids kids

 

[MistyWaters]

at the 4:30 mark in the same CBC video, Cpl. Guillaume Tremblay is interviewed. The exchange is interesting.

reporter: was anything found in any of these searches that was deemed to be of significance? Even if you can't tell me what it was, ANYTHING of significance?

Cpl Tremblay: So I can tell you that the investigation is ongoing and that we haven't found any evidence to show that there was an abduction of the children.

MOO he did not actually answer her question. He sidestepped it and spoke only to whether any evidence leads LE to think of abduction. But that isn't what she asked. She specifically asked if there was ANY significant evidence found in any of their SEARCHES. He didn't mention the boot print we know spurred a search and he for sure didn't mention any other evidence of those children being in the woods has been found, such as a piece of Lily's blanket.

An interesting example of answering a question that was not asked in order to avoid answering the question that was.

 

[Skigh]

An interesting example of answering a question that was not asked in order to avoid answering the question that was.

A politician's trick for when they do not want to answer the original question with a straightforward yes or no!

 

[tlcya]

Not one person has accused DM of contaminating the scene. It can’t be that people call 911 every single time their child is out of sight, more often than not 911 is called as a last resort. DM certainly would’ve informed searchers where he looked and they’d easily be able to recognize boot prints of a 4 and 6 year old and an adult.

Dare 911 tell a frantic parent to just sit still and not look for their missing child to avoid contaminating the scene, that would be presumptuous that the child wouldn’t be found. If a child fell and was injured minutes could be the difference between life and death. Especially in rural areas as it can’t be predicted how long it would take SAR to arrive.
JMO

Nobody has accused DM of anything. However, there is a reason why LE request that family not be part of searches for missing relatives. Because them traipsing around can actually make it harder for trained personnel to spot and recognize important clues.

If he was out there on that pipeline trial prior to LE then yes, his presence could absolutely have contaminated the scene. I don't think anyone is suggesting he purposefully did so but the fact remains that possibility exists. JMO

 

[Chimera]

exactly.

ETA once again, DM says a piece of Lilys blanket was found near the boot print. I assume this was teh partial boot print that was found on teh pipeline trail that runs some distance back in the woods behind the Martell property. LE has never confirmed if that boot print belongs to either child, but they investigated the area thoroughly based on the fact that it might be related. The radio chatter indicates the family (I have my thoughts on which member) brought searchers to a scrap of material. LE has said nothing about this scrap of material. Only DM says it was a piece of Lily's blanket.

Color me skeptical. I grow weary of having only one person's statements to rely upon and therefore I haven't been. . Others mileage may vary.

Ita.
Still waiting for LE to confirm this or any other statement made by DM.
Imo.

 

[su5ie]

I'm still surprised one of Maleyha's family haven't spoke to the media on her behalf to put speculation to bed

 

[Twistinginthewind]

LE can detain someone for no more than 24 hrs to investigate or get charges ready, but LE can not arrest anyone without reasonable and probable grounds.

Thanks for stating this so clearly, @AddyFinch. I was struggling to verbalize what you have.

IMO, the fact LE hasn't detained or arrested anyone as POIs or suspects in Lilly and Jack's disappearance only means they either

a) don't feel they need to (at least yet) based on evidence they've collected & evaluated thus far to proceed fruitfully in their investigation, &/or

b) have had no truly compelling evidence turn up (again, thus far) to indicate what happened to them or who may have been involved, and are building their case until they hopefully do have reasonable & probable grounds to detain & arrest someone(s)

 

[FansBlowing]

I recall in an Assassins video game, they buried a body in the woods and then drug a dead animal and threw it on top of the grave to throw the police dogs off. The dogs found the dead animal, but the police dismissed this finding as just a dead animal and moved on.

 

[Ghostwheel]

I never even thought about them going separately, what if one wandered didn't come back and other followed .
That to me makes more sense than two kids walking out of the yard into the beyond together

Both together actually makes a lot of sense to me. My D was older than her brother (about the same age range as Lily and Jack) and they went everywhere together under the age of 8. (He would have followed her to the moon and she would done everything to have made sure he arrived safely-just how they were). Off on an adventure. Maybe Lily feeling old enough to go by herself and Jack following along. If her brother had fallen into something, my D would have tried to save him and likely gotten herself into trouble. So that actually seems normal in a household where the kids might have gotten out without supervision. (The adult supervision is what kept my kids from doing things that would not have been very smart).

My only suspicion so far is that the amount of time that the parents were sleeping or asleep might not be accurate (I lose hours sometimes), or that they were in a deeper sleep than they thought. The difference between 20 minutes and an hour is a lot in kid travel time.

 

[AddyFinch]

Nobody has accused DM of anything. However, there is a reason why LE request that family not be part of searches for missing relatives. Because them traipsing around can actually make it harder for trained personal to spot and recognize important clues.

If he was out there on that pipeline trial prior to LE then yes, his presence could absolutely have contaminated the scene. I don't think anyone is suggesting he purposefully did so but the fact remains that possibility exists. JMO

I thought DM said in the early days he was determined to search, he came across someone in a military uniform who told him he couldn’t search, so he jumped the fence, but I can’t find the news article just AI. And no I didn’t suggest he deliberately contaminated a potential crime scene, he could have done so in his fear for searching for kids, but a savvy lawyer could make a big headache in a trial.
And thank you ticya ,for reminders that the safety of searchers is utmost of any team, and preservation of a potential crime scene imperative.

 

[Chimera]

The feeding topic has been hashed over many many times already. No media except Daily Mail reported that once, their reputation towards accuracy is well known.

Yes, agreed re. the accuracy in the Daily Mail's reporting, it's considered a tabloid by some but is allowed for a msm source here.

From the original article when the news broke of Lilly and Jack going missing, it sounds like DM was the source for the (paraphrased by me) "...we were in bed... feeding the toddler...", account.
Part of keeping this case and so many others alive -- is people commenting and possibly sharing helpful information; and tbh not that many have commented about feeding the baby/toddler, other than to say it was odd to do it like that ?

I'm more interested in the continuing absence of the mother.
Is she planning to make a plea for their safe return or just a message in case they're being held where they'd have access to a tv, or internet --- so they could hear her sending them a message ?
Etc.
Imo.

 

[Chimera]

at the 4:30 mark in the same CBC video, Cpl. Guillaume Tremblay is interviewed. The exchange is interesting.

reporter: was anything found in any of these searches that was deemed to be of significance? Even if you can't tell me what it was, ANYTHING of significance?

Cpl Tremblay: So I can tell you that the investigation is ongoing and that we haven't found any evidence to show that there was an abduction of the children.

MOO he did not actually answer her question. He sidestepped it and spoke only to whether any evidence leads LE to think of abduction. But that isn't what she asked. She specifically asked if there was ANY significant evidence found in any of their SEARCHES. He didn't mention the boot print we know spurred a search and he for sure didn't mention any other evidence of those children being in the woods has been found, such as a piece of Lily's blanket.

Red emphasis mine.

It's good to hear from LE even if they're reiterating what they've already said.

Imo-- we can rule out an abduction.
So that leaves two other options; foul play or wandered off ?
Again my opinion is that LE know what they have, but proving it may be difficult.
Omo.

 

[AddyFinch]

Yes, agreed re. the accuracy in the Daily Mail's reporting, it's considered a tabloid by some but is allowed for a msm source here.

From the original article when the news broke of Lilly and Jack going missing, it sounds like DM was the source for the (paraphrased by me) "...we were in bed... feeding the toddler...", account.
Part of keeping this case and so many others alive -- is people commenting and possibly sharing helpful information; and tbh not that many have commented about feeding the baby/toddler, other than to say it was odd to do it like that ?

I'm more interested in the continuing absence of the mother.
Is she planning to make a plea for their safe return or just a message in case they're being held where they'd have access to a tv, or internet --- so they could hear her sending them a message ?
Etc.
Imo.

The father of the missing Clair did come out and make a plea for his little girl, but the two cases are really apples and oranges I guess.p.s…..they found her AlIVE!!!!