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

[Chimera]

You might want to listen to his interview that you responded to.
He's responding to the first question he was asked during his polygraph.

He gives the impression he's reiterating it for the public, though; and tbh the perception people may have should not be the main focus.
Imo.

 

[Ursa Major]

He gives the impression he's reiterating it for the public, though; and tbh the perception people may have should not be the main focus.
Imo.

After watching this full interview, I cannot help a very uneasy feeling. He said "I know the truth". And immeadiately corrects himself by saying "I did not kill.." (the kids). Well, he said he knows the truth. How about the truth is somewhere else? For example, they were picked up (and not necessarily kidnapped) by someone right from home (remember, their scent stopped at driveway).

 

[Ghostwheel]

View attachment 596491
source :MSN

Sadly for me, that can be interpreted as Families brought us to a location not far away AND when we went there we found a piece of blanket, or Families brought us to a location not far away BECAUSE they said there was a piece of blanket. Unless someone really speaks in that kind of broken English (possible) the actual words seem to be missing something. Or might have been misinterpreted in the translation. Maybe "where there is a piece of blanket" or "and there's a piece of blanket."

I actually see words adding to a request for a canine (as in reason you want a canine)
"Family has brought us to a location there (in a location they said we should look and where we want a canine unit) not far away. That there's a piece of blanket...(reason why you want a canine because you found a piece of blanket)", but it could well be
"Family has brought us to a location there (A place where the family physically took the responder) not far away. That there's (as in the family said that there is) a piece of blanket..." and that is why they went in the first place.

Brought does not necessarily mean take by the hand and bring. Often things brought us to someplace in our lives. So the family said XYZ, which brought the responders to the area and they saw the blanket piece. Then maybe asked the family to come and identify it. As one interpretation.

It's the wording that gives me pause and I grant to everyone I am fence sitter extraordinaire and have been following a lot of cases for a lot of years where words got garbled and probably even have a different life experience than most. Doesn't mean I'm right, just that I maybe look at it differently. Your mileage may vary

 

[Ghostwheel]

After watching this full interview, I cannot help a very uneasy feeling. He said "I know the truth". And immeadiately corrects himself by saying "I did not kill.." (the kids). Well, he said he knows the truth. How about the truth is somewhere else? For example, they were picked up (and not necessarily kidnapped) by someone right from home (remember, their scent stopped at driveway).

Color me curious. Why would " I know the truth" and "I did not kill" be at odds with each other? If people are accusing him of killing the kids on social media, why wouldn't "I know the truth and the truth is I didn't kill them" go hand in hand? (also remember this interview was edited to get views)

 

[ttjo]

Color me curious. Why would " I know the truth" and "I did not kill" be at odds with each other? If people are accusing him of killing the kids on social media, why wouldn't "I know the truth and the truth is I didn't kill them" go hand in hand? (also remember this interview was edited to get views)

Thats kind of what I thought he meant, as in "despite the speculation, I know the truth, I did not kill Lily and Jack" or I know the truth( about myself), I did not do anything to the kids.

 

[ttjo]

Sadly for me, that can be interpreted as Families brought us to a location not far away AND when we went there we found a piece of blanket, or Families brought us to a location not far away BECAUSE they said there was a piece of blanket. Unless someone really speaks in that kind of broken English (possible) the actual words seem to be missing something. Or might have been misinterpreted in the translation. Maybe "where there is a piece of blanket" or "and there's a piece of blanket."

I actually see words adding to a request for a canine (as in reason you want a canine)
"Family has brought us to a location there (in a location they said we should look and where we want a canine unit) not far away. That there's a piece of blanket...(reason why you want a canine because you found a piece of blanket)", but it could well be
"Family has brought us to a location there (A place where the family physically took the responder) not far away. That there's (as in the family said that there is) a piece of blanket..." and that is why they went in the first place.

Brought does not necessarily mean take by the hand and bring. Often things brought us to someplace in our lives. So the family said XYZ, which brought the responders to the area and they saw the blanket piece. Then maybe asked the family to come and identify it. As one interpretation.

It's the wording that gives me pause and I grant to everyone I am fence sitter extraordinaire and have been following a lot of cases for a lot of years where words got garbled and probably even have a different life experience than most. Doesn't mean I'm right, just that I maybe look at it differently. Your mileage may vary

There is a recording of it.
Time stamp is 3:05

Not 100% on the date but was that May 2nd? Why just. a piece of blanket? Where is the rest of it? It almost implies something got to it, ( an animal?) I dont believe it was her blanket anyway. These are the things that sound kind of off.

 

[Ursa Major]

Color me curious. Why would " I know the truth" and "I did not kill" be at odds with each other? If people are accusing him of killing the kids on social media, why wouldn't "I know the truth and the truth is I didn't kill them" go hand in hand? (also remember this interview was edited to get views)

Well, I just got the impression that between "I know the truth" and "I did not kill" there was a sligh pause. I am not suggesting there the whole theory should arise from this little observation. Of course this can go hand in hand, and this can be just an editor's cut. But this moment got me. JMO.

 

[Ghostwheel]

Well, I just got the impression that between "I know the truth" and "I did not kill" there was a sligh pause. I am not suggesting there the whole theory should arise from this little observation. Of course this can go hand in hand, and this can be just an editor's cut. But this moment got me. JMO.

Thank you for responding. I can see that.

 

[Ghostwheel]

There is a recording of it.
Time stamp is 3:05

Not 100% on the date but was that May 2nd? Why just. a piece of blanket? Where is the rest of it? It almost implies something got to it, ( an animal?) I dont believe it was her blanket anyway. These are the things that sound kind of off.

Thank you! See there is an UH between that and there, like stopping to think. Now it makes more sense. And Families. Is that the kids' families or other families helping out? I don't suppose somewhere back in the threads is the entire radio chatter without anyone cutting just x part out? If anyone knows, just say yes, and I'll go look.

Again, I think the reporting is terrible and I have no idea what to trust.

 

[Ursa Major]

Thank you for responding. I can see that.

Of course, you never know. But call this intuition or whatever: this interview was telling enough for me to believe him a little bit more. You know, if someone says "I know the truth", -- what if they really do? He looks calm and confident while saying that. I did interpret this calmness as self-absorption before. But now this kind of gives me hope they are alive, he thinks they are, hense the calmness. How? I don't know. Maybe, like I said before, they were taken somewhere, and not necessarily for nefarious reasons. Kind of drifting from "lost in the woods/kidnapped" theory. This now makes a bit more sense to me somehow. Absolutely JMO.

 

[LadyL]

Question for anyone who works for the Child Welfare System. Can a complaint be made against someone anonymously?

And FYI, CPS, Child Protective Services is a United States of America agency.

yes I have done so even when I worked in the system

 

[LadyL]

I didn't realize Mom had also taken a lie detector test. He said she 'didn't want to tell' him the results. So, apparently they have had contact since she's been living somewhere else.

 

[LadyL]

after seeing the interview, I believe him
and I don't suspect Mom
but that doesn't preclude others known to the family being involved IMO

 

[Hexe]

It would neither be unlawful nor unheard of for a woman with sole custody of her children to place them with another person, possibly a friend or relative, who has agreed to care for them for a period of time. Who said they were ‘hiding’?

Hiding that fact from the police and sending them and other services for a wild goose chase WOULD ACTUALLY BE UNLAWFUL.

And keeping the location of children in secret so deep even LE does not know is a very definition of hiding.

 

[Firstsnow4]

Jun 19, 2025 #news #novascotia #missing
Six weeks after two children went missing in Nova Scotia, Lilly and Jack Sullivan's stepfather says he passed a police polygraph related to their disappearance. Daniel Martell wants people to know: "I didn't kill Lilly and Jack." He spoke with the CBC's Kayla Hounsell.

There’s a section in that interview where they are talking about the alleged drug party and he says ‘I know the person who started those rumours and it’s just to take the heat off of themselves’. I wonder what he means by that? Perhaps he does know the truth about who took them and the person who started the rumours about the drug party was involved? Is he being stitched up? JMO. Any thoughts?

 

[su5ie]

0

There’s a section in that interview where they are talking about the alleged drug party and he says ‘I know the person who started those rumours and it’s just to take the heat off of themselves’. I wonder what he means by that? Perhaps he does know the truth about who took them and the person who started the rumours about the drug party was involved? Is he being stitched up? JMO. Any thoughts?

"I know the person who started those rumours and it's just to take the heat off of themselves "

What an intriguing statement, it can be read into in so many ways .

Was he being stitched up ? as you say . Who is this person ? What was the motive of that person ? Was it to get Maleyha away from him ? Make the finger of suspicion fall firmly in his corner in order to create a divide in the relationship? Was it to hurt both of them ? Was someone jealous of the relationship? Or is he saying he knows who took the children ? And that person is buying time to get rid of the kids ? Is it a former friend , a former or current work colleague ,a family member or a professional whom prehaps didn't do their job properly in order to protect lilly and jack or set up support for them.

So much stuff you could interpret that as meaning

 

[su5ie]

I didn't realize Mom had also taken a lie detector test. He said she 'didn't want to tell' him the results. So, apparently they have had contact since she's been living somewhere else.

Daniel stated the cps didn't want to tell me that when he was asked how Maleyha got on with her polygraph. He does not say she didn't want to tell him . So apparently they may not have had any contact !

 

[su5ie]

There’s a section in that interview where they are talking about the alleged drug party and he says ‘I know the person who started those rumours and it’s just to take the heat off of themselves’. I wonder what he means by that? Perhaps he does know the truth about who took them and the person who started the rumours about the drug party was involved? Is he being stitched up? JMO. Any thoughts?

I actually didn't get to watch and study this interview until this morning as young children were in earshot .

His body language, his tone ,the fact his voice pitch remains the same throughout gives me a trust in his innocence.

The finger twiddling, the indications of his mouth becoming dry at times , his pauses to ensure what he his saying is concise and clear are imo all normal responses in situations were there is one on one interviews . I was thinking it was similar body language behaviour to a person in a job interview. And that person wanting to come across in a good light .

I do think he wants to convey his innocence to the public and wants people to stop blaming him . In a situation where lots of people and as he stated worldwide are insinuating or saying you killed two little children . I feel at some point if we were subjected to that amount of speculation and trolling and we were of the tendency to be reading it .and prehaps insecure enough to allow it to get inside our heads. Many people would not be able to shrug it off and would want to publicly declare our innocence. So I see nothing wrong with him doing that .

I think he is deeply hurt and as he says his whole life has changed and he has lost every thing he cared about .

I actually wanted to give him a motherly hug . Maybe my judgement is wrong and he is an extremely good liar but gauging by his emotional state and eye movements which didn't veer towards exaggerated states etc ( I watched the video twice once with sound and once with none )I thought this is just a normal Joe who has had his life turned upside down and god love him . He could choose to not be involved anymore and say sure I've done my part to help the investigation but he hasn't and at the moment he is the only family member giving the kids a voice .

I believe him and what he says .

I think when he says ' there is s lot more going on than meets the eye " he is alluding to the fact that there is a bigger picture here and it's not as simple as two kids wandering off and getting lost .is he stating that they were abducted or murdered . No , but I do think he is saying look outside of the box

I just want to add , both of the parents are strangers to us and I for one don't know one iota about their personalities or the ins and outs of their relationship with each other and the kids . But at the moment Daniel appears to be showing he is an open book ,whereas others are behaving imo akin to a secret diary under lock and key .
MOHO

 

[justice2962]

Even if the children were removed on the say so of MBM to a safe place , she would have informed authorities within 24 hours of her and meadow also getting to the safety of her family home .

She would have explained her reasonings behind this and the searches would have stopped .

Logically if we think about this scenario, what would she have to gain from continuing to keep up the pretence . Imo by allowing that scenario to continue she would in actual fact have much to lose including her freedom because as far as I'm aware misleading an investigation and providing false information to LE particularly one of this scale and cost would come with jail time and other legal repercussions.imo

In going along with this theory, if MBM wanted to remove the kids to a safe place and had someone pick them up, maybe she was planning on following (to get out of the relationship in an easy way without arguments etc)
Maybe she never had her chance to take off with Meadow and suddenly everything just blew up so quickly with the searches etc. she panicked and is in so deep she doesn’t know what to do now.
Although if that’s the case, there will be a price to pay with anyone involved in a scenario like that

JMO

 

[Poedelini]

Good post. Im somewhat conflicted. For example absent of emotions, anger towards somebody if he thinks they are murdered or abducted. Frustration because there are no answers yet and time has passed. I don't know, im in the middle.

Jmo

I actually didn't get to watch and study this interview until this morning as young children were in earshot .

His body language, his tone ,the fact his voice pitch remains the same throughout gives me a trust in his innocence.

The finger twiddling, the indications of his mouth becoming dry at times , his pauses to ensure what he his saying is concise and clear are imo all normal responses in situations were there is one on one interviews . I was thinking it was similar body language behaviour to a person in a job interview. And that person wanting to come across in a good light .

I do think he wants to convey his innocence to the public and wants people to stop blaming him . In a situation where lots of people and as he stated worldwide are insinuating or saying you killed two little children . I feel at some point if we were subjected to that amount of speculation and trolling and we were of the tendency to be reading it .and prehaps insecure enough to allow it to get inside our heads. Many people would not be able to shrug it off and would want to publicly declare our innocence. So I see nothing wrong with him doing that .

I think he is deeply hurt and as he says his whole life has changed and he has lost every thing he cared about .

I actually wanted to give him a motherly hug . Maybe my judgement is wrong and he is an extremely good liar but gauging by his emotional state and eye movements which didn't veer towards exaggerated states etc ( I watched the video twice once with sound and once with none )I thought this is just a normal Joe who has had his life turned upside down and god love him . He could choose to not be involved anymore and say sure I've done my part to help the investigation but he hasn't and at the moment he is the only family member giving the kids a voice .

I believe him and what he says .

I think when he says ' there is s lot more going on than meets the eye " he is alluding to the fact that there is a bigger picture here and it's not as simple as two kids wandering off and getting lost .is he stating that they were abducted or murdered . No , but I do think he is saying look outside of the box

I just want to add , both of the parents are strangers to us and I for one don't know one iota about their personalities or the ins and outs of their relationship with each other and the kids . But at the moment Daniel appears to be showing he is an open book ,whereas others are behaving imo akin to a secret diary under lock and key .
MOHO