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

[Bigditch]

Could you clarify what visit and from which agency you are referencing when you say "the visit"? Visits from child protective services are never due to "developmental delays". Most parents with children with developmental delays are never investigated nor visited bt child protective services. IF you are referring to *that* visit, and your wording seems to imply personal knowledge, what do you believe this visit was about?

All to say, Daniel's words. Somehow "the visit" was construed to mean that child welfare services were investigating something nefarious at Gairlich Rd. In short, making Daniel out to look like a blockhead, an abuser, a neglectful parent.

NO legal authority has attested to such accusations.

Hope that helps.

 

[su5ie]

I am still stuck on the mother's boyfriend's early description of the kids - he said that Lily had a white backpack with strawberries "that would be brown now" or something along those lines, and mentioned that Jack might be without his pull-up.

Describing the backpack that way...made me wonder if he knew it was buried somewhere or in the trash. Or if he was just saying that Lily didn't take care of her things so she would have trashed the backpack if left to her own devices.

Jack being without his pull-up - same thing. He could have been implying that he already knows Jack isn't wearing a pull-up anymore - or, he could be saying that Jack was known for removing his pull-up himself, so he probably isn't wearing it anymore.

If the kids were abducted, there's no reason a white backpack would have gotten dirty enough to look brown - so it was odd to me that he talked about abduction while also describing the backpack that way. It could have been just odd stream of consciousness stuff he was saying under stress...or it could have deeper meaning.

Imo he is describing the backpack in the first description white with strawberries as it was when bought and new . In the second part of his sentence " that would be brown now " he is saying the white is now brown from wear and tear and general use . And possibly from being dragged by a 6 year old around a dirt yard .

Daniel is not going to describe the bag as dirty white bag with strawberries. Imo

I suppose I've said things like that such as if someone passes a remark like " oh I like your trainers " and I might reply " thanks oh they are manky now , I've been out hill walking etc . But if I lost them and was looking to find them I might describe them as white trainers bit worn , brown stained from mud

This is a normal statement for me and I didn't read into as oh he is saying its brown now because he has buried the bag with lilly in a shallow grave


Same with the pull up , he knows jack sometimes takes it off , sometimes he doesn't. So he is saying he had one on from night before but I don't know if he has since taken it off because occasionally he does .

He want to be sure he is getting the description exactly right and doesn't want the public / LE to be misled in that description in case they come across the items

This line is actually what made me think he was being truthful in his account of what happened and he was being honest . Generally people making a statement that is true will add small corrections like this as it was a flowing correction

 

[justice2962]

let me find it, it was after she left his property, BRB

This is from Social Media, you won’t be able to post it

 

[LivvyL]

I feel like they wanted to go to school. They walked out front to catch a bus and were picked up by an opportunistic kidnapper. It’s very, very remote out there with very thick woods. I can’t see two small children getting very far in those woods. Nova Scotia had the most dense forests I’ve ever seen. A lot of climbing over fallen trees etc. would have to happen.

 

[ttjo]

This is from Social Media, you won’t be able to post it

Yes, so I couldnt post it, and then I had to edit my post because I realized it was from social media. It was a while ago so I forgot where I heard it. It's ok, I don't need to post it because I was just trying to show why I had that opinion.

 

[Slebby]

I feel like they wanted to go to school. They walked out front to catch a bus and were picked up by an opportunistic kidnapper. It’s very, very remote out there with very thick woods. I can’t see two small children getting very far in those woods. Nova Scotia had the most dense forests I’ve ever seen. A lot of climbing over fallen trees etc. would have to happen.

My question, then, is how does the boot print and alleged scrap of Lilly’s blanket end up at the trial 1.2 km away?

 

[AddyFinch]

My question, then, is how does the boot print and alleged scrap of Lilly’s blanket end up at the trial 1.2 km away?

Planted or wrongful shape analysis or irrelevant ie someone else’s, animal dragged?

 

[Hexe]

I am still stuck on the mother's boyfriend's early description of the kids - he said that Lily had a white backpack with strawberries "that would be brown now" or something along those lines, and mentioned that Jack might be without his pull-up.

Describing the backpack that way...made me wonder if he knew it was buried somewhere or in the trash. Or if he was just saying that Lily didn't take care of her things so she would have trashed the backpack if left to her own devices.

Don't see any nefarious knowledge here. A white backpack won't stay white for long in a wet forest.

 

[ttjo]

Planted or irrelevant ie someone else’s, animal dragged?

It's really hard to say when we hear nothing from the police but a lot from social media that is unconfirmed.

 

[AddyFinch]

This case reminds me of”best laid plans of mice and men, often go awry”. If you look at it from a crime sense…well they got away with it, zero evidence. If you look at it from concocted domestic issue, then there are many holes in stories, people, supposed evidence found ie material and a footwear mark, interviews given or not given etc.

 

[Slebby]

Danaya, thank you for such a comprehensive post. I love when someone puts in the work to make sense of the facts as we know them.

One tiny clarification - in the category of planned abduction, you said “May have known that May 2 was a PD day, meaning the children would be home and possibly outside” May 2 was not a PD day. Hence the 6:17 am communication that the children would be absent from school.

This is just my opinion, but I believe your analysis is most supportive of something happening based in their home with one or both of DM and MBM. Here’s my thinking:

There is a bootprint and a scrap of blanket found near the pipeline trail, someone in the family identifies it as being from Lilly’s blanket. Yet the terrain between the home and the pipeline trail is too dense for the children to have been likely to get through to make it to the pipeline trail. And search dogs did not alert to the children being there. Even 1 or 2 strong adults grabbed them and carried them, dog would have alerted to their having travelled into the forest. The bootprint and blanket scrap, to me, feels more like planted evidence. IMO.

No one could have known the children were being kept home from school that day. So an abductor could not have known they’d be there. An abductor certainly could not have known DM and MBM were having a lazy lie-in with little Meadow, making the children vulnerable to being snatched.
An opportunistic abductor grabbing them off the roadside (such a remote possibility, IMO) does not account for a bootprint and scrap of blanket found near the pipeline trail.

There is another possibility I would consider, and it is that the timeline as reported by DM and MBM is not accurate, ie, they hadn’t actually seen or heard the children since the night before, for example, or they themselves had left the children unattended at the property and gone somewhere and returned to find them missing, as another example.

The scrap of blanket and bootprint, for me, cancels out the possibility that they wandered (forest too dense for them to get there and dogs never alerted that they’d gone to the forest) and also cancels the abduction possibilities.

IMO

 

[AddyFinch]

It's really hard to say when we hear nothing from the police but a lot from social media that is unconfirmed.

The SM is really goofing this case up. Can’t believe most of it, bad actors, money grifters, fake photos, videos etc, but…..occasionally there is a possibility of truth in some ideas, not being able to sleuth those remarks, detracts from possibilities to be explored. Hopefully LE scrutinizes all of it and sorts fact from fiction.

 

[AddyFinch]

. The bootprint and blanket scrap, to me, feels more like planted evidence. IMO.

No one could have known the children were being kept home from school that day. So an abductor could not have known they’d be there. An abductor certainly could not have known DM and MBM were having a lazy lie-in with little Meadow, making the children vulnerable to being snatched.
An opportunistic abductor grabbing them off the roadside (such a remote possibility, IMO) does not account for a bootprint and scrap of blanket found near the pipeline trail.

There is another possibility I would consider, and it is that the timeline as reported by DM and MBM is not accurate, ie, they hadn’t actually seen or heard the children since the night before, for example, or they themselves had left the children unattended at the property and gone somewhere and returned to find them missing, as another example.

The scrap of blanket and bootprint, for me, cancels out the possibility that they wandered (forest too dense for them to get there and dogs never alerted that they’d gone to the forest) and also cancels the abduction possibilities.

IMO

agree, but all of that leads me to known abductor, either prearranged or not…..wow never knew me to flip flop so much.

 

[MistyWaters]

All to say, Daniel's words. Somehow "the visit" was construed to mean that child welfare services were investigating something nefarious at Gairlich Rd. In short, making Daniel out to look like a blockhead, an abuser, a neglectful parent.

NO legal authority has attested to such accusations.

Hope that helps.

We don’t even know if Daniel was present for the Child Welfare visit as MBM had sole custody. He might just be repeating what she told him.

 

[ttjo]

agree, but all of that leads me to known abductor, either prearranged or not…..wow never knew me to flip flop so much.

I feel like it could be someone who didnt consider it an abduction, rather helping with an exit plan. Maybe even getting the ball rolling maybe not even thinking it was nefarious b/c they are MBM's kids. and then it just blew up.
I'd be scared to death also of what I got myself into and what to do next.
If that is a possibility then the nefarious part is how it was reported and how it continues to spin.


Who knows, I get what you mean about social media,but sometimes they all get chalked up to being BS and sometimes it isnt.

 

[MistyWaters]

Planted or wrongful shape analysis or irrelevant ie someone else’s, animal dragged?

The RCMP aren’t fixated on it as they’ve continued to stress no evidence of abduction was found, along with no evidence found along the pipeline trail. The bootprint couldn’t be determined to belong to one of the children.

We should remember this finding occurred way back on May 2nd when both DM and MBM were suggesting an abduction took place. So yes indeed it’s possible it was placed by just about anyone who wanted to move the abduction theory forward or it was just a matter of hopeful misidentification. Perhaps DNA testing found none of Lilly’s DNA on it or her entire intact blanket was later located therefore the piece became inconsequential. Other than mention by DM, it seems it’s not important enough for the RCMP to consider as evidence so there must be a reason.
JMO

Polygraphs, a blanket and a bootprint: New details of investigation into missing N.S. children revealed | RCI

Nearly a dozen RCMP units are trying to piece together what happened to Lilly and Jack Sullivan.

ici.radio-canada.ca

RCMP refused to answer questions about the blanket, however the force did confirm the bootprint was believed to be child-sized.

Asked if anything of significance has been uncovered in the course of the investigation, RCMP Cpl. Guillaume Tremblay said there is no evidence to suggest the children were abducted.

He also repeated what the Mounties have said all along, that every missing persons investigation is considered suspicious until they have reason to believe otherwise.

 

[Bigditch]

The RCMP aren’t fixated on it as they’ve continued to stress no evidence of abduction was found, along with no evidence found along the pipeline trail. The bootprint couldn’t be determined to belong to one of the children.

We should remember this finding occurred way back on May 2nd when both DM and MBM were suggesting an abduction took place. So yes indeed it’s possible it was placed by just about anyone who wanted to move the abduction theory forward or it was just a matter of hopeful misidentification. Perhaps DNA testing found none of Lilly’s DNA on it or her entire intact blanket was later located therefore the piece became inconsequential. Other than mention by DM, it seems it’s not important enough for the RCMP to consider as evidence so there must be a reason.
JMO

Polygraphs, a blanket and a bootprint: New details of investigation into missing N.S. children revealed | RCI

Nearly a dozen RCMP units are trying to piece together what happened to Lilly and Jack Sullivan.

ici.radio-canada.ca

RCMP refused to answer questions about the blanket, however the force did confirm the bootprint was believed to be child-sized.

Asked if anything of significance has been uncovered in the course of the investigation, RCMP Cpl. Guillaume Tremblay said there is no evidence to suggest the children were abducted.

He also repeated what the Mounties have said all along, that every missing persons investigation is considered suspicious until they have reason to believe otherwise.

Dbm

 

[Bigditch]

Do we know if Daniel's route the day he searched for the kids on his ATV has been mapped?
&
anyone know who the white truck in the driveway belongs to?

 

[Sillybilly]

I don't think we should generalize and assume that developmental delay in this case is a result of abuse or neglect.

DD is frequently associated with autism (which is not known to be caused by abuse or neglect and more likely due to a genetic component).

According to experts, the cause of DD is not always known, and there are many possible causes.

from: Developmental Delay

What causes developmental delay?​

Prematurity, medical problems (ranging from stroke to chronic ear infection), lead poisoning, and trauma all have the potential to cause developmental delay, but sometimes the cause is unknown. Ann L. Close, PhD, a Yale Medicine Child Study Center clinical psychologist and associate director of the Infancy & Early Childhood Program, specializes in the assessment and treatment of children under 5. She urges all parents concerned about a child’s development to discuss it with their pediatrician.

IMO, it's possible that someone (whether neighbor, school employee, etc) who didn't fully understand that Jack or Lilly had DD, who was critical / judgmental of the family home, perceived their behavior to be due to abuse or neglect, and called CPS anonymously to report.

JMO.

 

[KBlackRabbit]

I feel like it could be someone who didnt consider it an abduction, rather helping with an exit plan. Maybe even getting the ball rolling maybe not even thinking it was nefarious b/c they are MBM's kids. and then it just blew up.
I'd be scared to death also of what I got myself into and what to do next.
If that is a possibility then the nefarious part is how it was reported and how it continues to spin.


Who knows, I get what you mean about social media,but sometimes they all get chalked up to being BS and sometimes it isnt.

I doubt it was this. They’d have to present the children sometime.

If it was part of a planned exit MBM would have said so as soon as the authorities showed up. No need for pretending it was an abduction or getting lost in the forest. DM had no legal right to stop them from leaving, he’s not their biological father, he’s not even their step-father, he was just their mother’s live-in boyfriend.