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

[AddyFinch]

I dont' know if DM is telling the truth, but this I do know.... my husband wouldn't have the foggiest what the kids had on at any given time of day, even if he washed and dressed them in am, which he often did if I was on day shift. Men just don't pay attention those things. So if DM said, I don't know what they had on, he would probably be telling the truth. Heck, my husband used to send our daughter to the neighbours just before she got on the bus, and that neighbour would do her braids.

 

[sunshineray]

Absolutely agree with ^^. I unpacked this with some experienced minds today,
… if they ventured out on their own (general consensus was children’s of this age do not do this during night hours, and if daylight hours when they eloped,then some form of evidence would be found primarily by dogs).

LE maintains children not abducted which must include known abductor which is still a crime. If sold, (trafficking), why wouldn’t information flyers, media etc be used. Imperative to get face etc out there.

And lastly murder. If not abducted (for murder), then murder by parents is reasonable conclusion statistically.
Murder (how, why, where, when). Body disposal (how, where, when).

I'm not totally caught up. Have LE stated the children were not abducted?

 

[justice2962]

Do some people think that kids are "unsupervised" if the parents are asleep while the kids are playing in another room of their home? It seems to me that is just normal family living.

This depends on the age of the kids, being that they are 4 and 6 years of age I kind of think it is neglectful. When my kids were that young (when I wasn’t working), no matter how tired or crappy I felt (even if I was sick), I would get up and take care of them. They need breakfast, they need to be watched. It’s even more neglectful considering there were two adults lying in bed trying to get more sleep while two young kids were up. One of them should have gotten up! JMO

 

[Ontario Mom]

We know Daniel spoke about what's online and rumour and false allegations on SM . Do you think there is a reason he is not giving a description of what the kids morning looked like in regards what time they got up at or if they were fed breakfast by either himself or Maleyha. I feel he is so vocal about everything that to quell speculation that the kids were "neglected " that morning he would have filled in the gaps by now .

Considering he was interviewed for over 4 hours (according to him), my guess would be that he told RCMP a whole lot more than what he's said to the media. We (the public) don't have the details on what went on in that house that morning, but I expect LE most certainly does.

 

[Ontario Mom]

I'm not totally caught up. Have LE stated the children were not abducted?

They've only stated there's no evidence of it. But that's been a while now so who knows if that's changed or is the same.

 

[su5ie]

Considering he was interviewed for over 4 hours (according to him), my guess would be that he told RCMP a whole lot more than what he's said to the media. We (the public) don't have the details on what went on in that house that morning, but I expect LE most certainly does.

Most certainly LE have asked the questions we are so curious to know and many more than we could even come up with .

With Daniels apparent need to quell negative opinions and speculation from the public , I just thought it was surprising he hadn't addressed this as it is a wide spread discussion and the subject of a lot of the trolling on SM . Or maybe I'm just being intrusive

You and I get that it was somewhat of a normal household morning . Kids up before parents . Probably occurred numerous times before but this morning it wasn't. But as they say the devil is in the detail and it's the things that are left out , that sometimes hold the answers . What if the kids fed up waiting for breakfast or in need of milk for cereal decided to go over to DMs mum and were intercepted by someone. It might make more sense as to why the set of bootprints were found at the edge of the driveway

 

[shetalksinstereo]

I wonder why the boot print hasn't been verified as belonging to the children? Surely that would be easy to match as they know the brand of boots and the size?

I'm puzzled about the blanket scrap too. Blankets don't just fall apart and although in thick bush it's easy to tear some fabrics, it's not so easy for a piece to detach - as in the phrase 'hanging on by a thread'. Presumably it's not a knitted blanket as although this would be easy to catch, a detached piece would be a strand of yarn and I don't think this could be described as a scrap of blanket. Fleece is common for kids blankets these days, I have a Walmart fleece blanket many years older than these children and I can't imagine a piece would tear off if I was carrying it or was wrapped in it in the woods. If it caught tight, I don't think a person would have the strength to tear it away. It would tear if it was caught in machinery though, so I hope this possibility is being looked at.

Unless it was a scrap to begin with? I had a baby blanket that I carried into kindergarten age and it was literally a scrap tied with a ribbon.

 

[AnnieOakley123]

The only facts provided by police and MSM to the public are:

1. Jack and Lilly were seen in video footage with "family members" on the afternoon of May 1 in New Glasgow, NS.
2. Malehya made a 911 call around 10 am on May 2 to report Jack and Lilly missing.
3. RCMP have repeatedly said there is no evidence to suggest the children were abducted (and stick to that claim as of June 21 CBC News Nova Scotia short police clip).
4. The only evidence reported by the RCMP is that they found what they described as a child-sized boot print, but did not confirm it belonged to Jack or Lilly.

Everything else is hearsay -- and hearsay springs from intention to paint a particular picture.

MOO: I do not believe the children were ever in the woods. The only plausible theory (in my mind) is that they were handed off to someone known to either Malehya or Daniel, and were taken away by car. It is impossible to think trained police dogs could not detect any scent of the children if they had wandered anywhere on foot. As for whether they are alive or not, I hope the RCMP is closing in on finding the answer.

 

[tlcya]

The only facts provided by police and MSM to the public are:

1. Jack and Lilly were seen in video footage with "family members" on the afternoon of May 1 in New Glasgow, NS.
2. Malehya made a 911 call around 10 am on May 2 to report Jack and Lilly missing.
3. RCMP have repeatedly said there is no evidence to suggest the children were abducted (and stick to that claim as of June 21 CBC News Nova Scotia short police clip).
4. The only evidence reported by the RCMP is that they found what they described as a child-sized boot print, but did not confirm it belonged to Jack or Lilly.

Everything else is hearsay -- and hearsay springs from intention to paint a particular picture.

MOO: I do not believe the children were ever in the woods. The only plausible theory (in my mind) is that they were handed off to someone known to either Malehya or Daniel, and were taken away by car. It is impossible to think trained police dogs could not detect any scent of the children if they had wandered anywhere on foot. As for whether they are alive or not, I hope the RCMP is closing in on finding the answer.

agree with everything you say above except for the BBM. I think it is very possible they are in those woods but I am almost certain they didn't get their on their own. If that is correct they were carried into those woods already deceased and were hidden somewhere.

I cannot believe no cadaver dogs were used in any of the searches for the children. That just blows me away.

I am truly convinced those babies met with foul play and are no longer living. The answers to what happened to the children are on that property and the only folks that know are the adults the children trusted most. JMO

 

[su5ie]

https://pub.epsilon.slu.se/31929/1/ohman-b-et-al-20231017.pdf#:~:text=Searching%20for%20missing%20persons%20is%20an%20important%20task%20for%20police%20dog%20teams.&text=During%20the%20searches%2C%2025%20out%20of%2026,to%20be%20found%20by%20the%20police%20dog

Interesting article on the probabilites of scent dogs finding a missing person or planted decoy

Success rate is generally in the 92% -96% figure .

Rain actually increases the scent which I would not have thought . I felt because it rained heavily on the sat / sun it could have possibly washed away the children's scent trail .

How weather affects scent & your trail

Weather conditions can greatly influence the behavior of human scent and present interesting challenges for pet dogs who engage in scent-based activities, such as mantrailing.

allwaggedout.co.uk

And apparently even a blade of grass brushing off your trouser leg is enough to alert them to the track you have taken .

I'm starting to think them kids were placed in a vehicle at the end of the driveway tbh

 

[tlcya]

or carried off into the woods via ATV

 

[Serononin]

The only facts provided by police and MSM to the public are:

1. Jack and Lilly were seen in video footage with "family members" on the afternoon of May 1 in New Glasgow, NS.
2. Malehya made a 911 call around 10 am on May 2 to report Jack and Lilly missing.
3. RCMP have repeatedly said there is no evidence to suggest the children were abducted (and stick to that claim as of June 21 CBC News Nova Scotia short police clip).
4. The only evidence reported by the RCMP is that they found what they described as a child-sized boot print, but did not confirm it belonged to Jack or Lilly.

Everything else is hearsay -- and hearsay springs from intention to paint a particular picture.

MOO: I do not believe the children were ever in the woods. The only plausible theory (in my mind) is that they were handed off to someone known to either Malehya or Daniel, and were taken away by car. It is impossible to think trained police dogs could not detect any scent of the children if they had wandered anywhere on foot. As for whether they are alive or not, I hope the RCMP is closing in on finding the answer.

The question I keep coming back to is whether or not Lilly and Jack definitely made it home from New Glasgow on May 1st

 

[sunshineray]

The only facts provided by police and MSM to the public are:

1. Jack and Lilly were seen in video footage with "family members" on the afternoon of May 1 in New Glasgow, NS.
2. Malehya made a 911 call around 10 am on May 2 to report Jack and Lilly missing.
3. RCMP have repeatedly said there is no evidence to suggest the children were abducted (and stick to that claim as of June 21 CBC News Nova Scotia short police clip).
4. The only evidence reported by the RCMP is that they found what they described as a child-sized boot print, but did not confirm it belonged to Jack or Lilly.

Everything else is hearsay -- and hearsay springs from intention to paint a particular picture.

MOO: I do not believe the children were ever in the woods. The only plausible theory (in my mind) is that they were handed off to someone known to either Malehya or Daniel, and were taken away by car. It is impossible to think trained police dogs could not detect any scent of the children if they had wandered anywhere on foot. As for whether they are alive or not, I hope the RCMP is closing in on finding the answer.

Thanks for the info and link.

 

[sunshineray]

Anyone know what make and model the ATV the step-dad said he immediately jumped on? TIA

 

[AddyFinch]

dam

 

[AddyFinch]

I want to know if he came home and cleaned it off after the morning search? Did LE take photos of that vehicle, surely it would be covered with dirt, mud, weeds or dna. Did DM own any guns? If so did he have a licence for such. Did he hunt? Did he have a hunt camp? Did he own a boat?

 

[shetalksinstereo]

I asked AI about it. Here is what it said. Always so much more eloquent that I am.

----

Q: if a child in grade 1 is showing developmental delays, would that be a reason to contact protective services?

A: Developmental delays in a first-grader, such as difficulties with speech, motor skills, or social interactions, are not typically grounds for contacting protective services unless there’s evidence or suspicion of abuse, neglect, or endangerment contributing to the delays. Protective services, like Child Protective Services (CPS), focus on situations involving maltreatment, unsafe living conditions, or failure to meet a child’s basic needs (e.g., food, shelter, medical care).
If the delays are observed in a school setting, the first step would usually be to refer the child for evaluation through the school’s special education team or a pediatrician to assess potential developmental disorders (e.g., autism, ADHD, or learning disabilities). Parents or guardians should be involved to address the child’s needs, possibly through an Individualized Education Program (IEP) or medical intervention.
Contacting protective services would only be warranted if there are additional red flags, such as signs of physical or emotional abuse, severe neglect (e.g., untreated medical conditions or malnutrition), or an unsafe home environment. For example, if a child’s delays are accompanied by frequent unexplained injuries, extreme hunger, or reports of being left alone for extended periods, those could justify a report. Mandated reporters, like teachers, are required to report suspected maltreatment, but delays alone don’t meet that threshold.

I'd be interested to hear about their school attendance. I wonder if they were they absent frequently?

 

[derweezy]

agree with everything you say above except for the BBM. I think it is very possible they are in those woods but I am almost certain they didn't get their on their own. If that is correct they were carried into those woods already deceased and were hidden somewhere.

I cannot believe no cadaver dogs were used in any of the searches for the children. That just blows me away.

I am truly convinced those babies met with foul play and are no longer living. The answers to what happened to the children are on that property and the only folks that know are the adults the children trusted most. JMO

The fact that they haven't brought in cadaver dogs, in my opinion means the RCMP do not believe they are in the woods. I honestly believe the RCMP knows a lot more than they are choosing to share with the public...

 

[tlcya]

The fact that they haven't brought in cadaver dogs, in my opinion means the RCMP do not believe they are in the woods. I honestly believe the RCMP knows a lot more than they are choosing to share with the public...

I hope that you are correct in that belief. I would very much like to know what became of Jack and Lily

 

[justice2962]

Here’s a new little video, I gotta say, LE is very tight lipped