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

[Danaya]

The call to emergency services was 10am.

Where did you read the family led them directly to where the blanket was found. I haven’t seen that anywhere yet so if that’s true that’s very interesting.

Thank you for the clarification.

CBC reported in a June 19th article that the "families" brought the emergency responders to the "piece of blanket."

On the first day of the search, emergency responders speaking over a non-encrypted radio channel mention a canine unit being dispatched to a blanket.

"Families brought us to a location there not far away that there's a piece of a blanket which the mother says she believes belongs to her daughter, just off the road here," an official said over the radio.

Martell confirmed it was a piece of Lilly's blanket.

I took it to mean that it was shown to first responders by the mother or step-father. Thoughts?

 

[Slebby]

Curious, why do you think it makes zero sense for someone to emerge from the railtrack or pipeline trail?

You didn’t ask me… but I’ll give my 2 cents

For someone to emerge from the trails, were they opportunistic? As in, “lucky me, I just happen to be a predator/child trafficker out hiking on this trail today, and I found a house with a couple unattended children and I’m going to grab them and hope the adults don’t hear”

Or as in planned - “even though the children are usually in school on a weekday I’m going to take my chances that they’re home sick and scoop them up while hoping the parents are having a good lie-in, and my best approach for getting away undetected is hauling them away over these trails, and not by the road in a vehicle”

Personally I think the hypothetical of abduction via the trails is unlikely.

IMHO

 

[tlcya]

Thank you for the clarification.

CBC reported in a June 19th article that the "families" brought the emergency responders to the "piece of blanket."



I took it to mean that it was shown to first responders by the mother or step-father. Thoughts?

the articles are quoting what was heard on the scanner. My belief is that the person speaking on the radio (someone associated with the search team or LE) says "Family's brought" as in family has brought.

I believe reporters have misinterpreted by using the word families (as in multiple families) rather than (unnamed family member or members) has

 

[justice2962]

I don't see this as him making any sort of shifting statement.

They were both sleeping, they both woke up and asked each other if they can hear the kids. From all I've read, they both said the same thing to each other. That story hasn't changed at all.

I don’t see it that way, we’ll just have to agree to disagree

 

[su5ie]

You didn’t ask me… but I’ll give my 2 cents

For someone to emerge from the trails, were they opportunistic? As in, “lucky me, I just happen to be a predator/child trafficker out hiking on this trail today, and I found a house with a couple unattended children and I’m going to grab them and hope the adults don’t hear”

Or as in planned - “even though the children are usually in school on a weekday I’m going to take my chances that they’re home sick and scoop them up while hoping the parents are having a good lie-in, and my best approach for getting away undetected is hauling them away over these trails, and not by the road in a vehicle”

Personally I think the hypothetical of abduction via the trails is unlikely.

IMHO

If the laughing emoji was possible ,your hypothetically inner dialogue of a predator would certainly merit me giving you one for your post especially the 3rd paragraph, the planned one

I obviously know that this case is not a laughing matter but in all the seriousness this just made me burst out laughing to the point people are staring

 

[ttjo]

the articles are quoting what was heard on the scanner. My belief is that the person speaking on the radio (someone associated with the search team or LE) says "Family's brought" as in family has brought.

I believe reporters have misinterpreted by using the word families (as in multiple families) rather than (unnamed family member or members) has

here is the clip: timestamp 3:05

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

sounds like " the family has brought us to a location" even tho CC has it as "the familes ...uh... brought us ", I think CC has it wrong. which is common

 

[Gut_feeling]

I keep coming back to the mother leaving DM so quickly, and then blocking him and cutting off contact. It just feels as if "there is something there" there. I feel that separation is significant in this case. I just cannot figure out HOW.

Also, I am now suspicious of how DM made the statement about (I'm paraphrasing) "Leave MBM alone, her mental health is important, it affects her ability to care for our child." On one hand, this could be seen as a normal, empathetic, compassionate thing for a partner to say. HOWEVER, it can also be seen as something someone would say to lessen the chances of their accomplice "cracking" and spilling the beans? What if DM is doing all the talking because he is AFRAID if MBM doing any talking?

 

[MistyWaters]

here is the clip: timestampo 3:05

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

sounds like " the family has brought us to a location"

If the scrap of blanket found May 2nd didn’t yield Lilly’s DNA, then it was just a piece of litter in the ditch, immaterial to the investigation. Had it been proven to be hers I’d be quite certain the pipeline trail would’ve been searched right away, not a month later.
JMO

 

[AcerPacer]

You didn’t ask me… but I’ll give my 2 cents

For someone to emerge from the trails, were they opportunistic? As in, “lucky me, I just happen to be a predator/child trafficker out hiking on this trail today, and I found a house with a couple unattended children and I’m going to grab them and hope the adults don’t hear”

Or as in planned - “even though the children are usually in school on a weekday I’m going to take my chances that they’re home sick and scoop them up while hoping the parents are having a good lie-in, and my best approach for getting away undetected is hauling them away over these trails, and not by the road in a vehicle”

Personally I think the hypothetical of abduction via the trails is unlikely.

IMHO

Beautifully worded!

 

[ttjo]

I keep coming back to the mother leaving DM so quickly, and then blocking him and cutting off contact. It just feels as if "there is something there" there. I feel that separation is significant in this case. I just cannot figure out HOW.

Trust me I felt the same, but Im factoring in her personality, and that if she was told we need to put meadow in someone elses care for now, and she had the option to go with her. ( which may have been allowed if contact was supervised?) so she did. But I dont know if she was told not to talk to Daniel, or if after the family dispute she decided to high tail it outta there. its a bit overkill to block him but I kind of see her as a bit reactive.Maybe the block was in reaction to the family dispute.?

 

[MistyWaters]

I keep coming back to the mother leaving DM so quickly, and then blocking him and cutting off contact. It just feels as if "there is something there" there. I feel that separation is significant in this case. I just cannot figure out HOW.

Also, I am now suspicious of how DM made the statement about (I'm paraphrasing) "Leave MBM alone, her mental health is important, it affects her ability to care for our child." On one hand, this could be seen as a normal, empathetic, compassionate thing for a partner to say. HOWEVER, it can also be seen as something someone would say to lessen the chances of their accomplice "cracking" and spilling the beans? What if DM is doing all the talking because he is AFRAID if MBM doing any talking?

Interesting how different people see things differently. But I can’t see how DM talking prevents MBM from talking. It was her choice, she slammed that door shut by informing the media the police told her not to talk to them (denied by police). I don’t think they even know where to find her, while DM stays put. If either were inclined to “spill the beans” or “crack” IMO it would occur during RCMP interrogation, not during a media interview with reporters just assigned to get a brief story for the evening news. I hadn’t noticed DM saying anything to intimidate MBM at all, no reason to add drama, he’s just stuck to the story.
JMO

 

[Gut_feeling]

Interesting how different people see things differently. But I can’t see how DM talking prevents MBM from talking. It was her choice, she slammed that door shut by informing the media the police told her not to talk to them (denied by police). I don’t think they even know where to find her, while DM stays put. If either were inclined to “spill the beans” or “crack” IMO it would occur during RCMP interrogation, not during a media interview with reporters just assigned to get a brief story for the evening news. I hadn’t noticed DM saying anything to intimidate MBM at all, no reason to add drama, he’s just stuck to the story.
JMO

I haven't seen anything that looks like DM trying to intimidate MBM either.

 

[ttjo]

Or as in planned - “even though the children are usually in school on a weekday I’m going to take my chances that they’re home sick and scoop them up while hoping the parents are having a good lie-in, and my best approach for getting away undetected is hauling them away over these trails, and not by the road in a vehicle”

Personally I think the hypothetical of abduction via the trails is unlikely.

IMHO

I dont know if this is what an "organized abduction would look like. What you describe sounds more like opportunistic. ( think Rachel Morin and a Raper waiting for the next girl to jog by)
Maybe someone else can give nore details, what the difference is, so Its clear. @Danaya ?

 

[MistyWaters]

Rail Line and Trails Directly Behind the Sullivan Residence

Yesterday, I realized there's another potential access route to the Sullivan backyard: the railway trail.

Not only that, but both the pipeline trail (used by hunters, hikers, etc.) and the railway corridor behind the home lead directly to Highway 289.


To clarify:

• A rail track is a long, narrow path where trains travel—or used to. In this case, it looks like the track behind the Sullivan home is inactive. It’s surrounded by trees, unfenced, and appears walkable. Someone could move along it without being seen from nearby homes or roads.

• A pipeline trail is a wide, cleared path through the woods used for underground pipelines or utility lines. These trails are usually made of packed dirt or gravel and are often used by ATVs, locals, hunters, or utility vehicles. They connect to highways or service roads, making them easy to walk or drive along.

Using Google Earth and  AI, I located the exact coordinates of the residence, and spent hours analyzing the surroundings.

Here are three main theories based on terrain and logistics:

1. Abduction (planned or opportunistic)

2. An Internal Actor

3. Children wandered away

---

1. THE SCENE

To assess any theory—abduction, accident, or otherwise—we must start where the children were last reportedly seen: the backyard.

I tried to imagine:

1. How a perpetrator could’ve entered undetected
2. How someone could move two children (living or deceased)
3. How the timeline changes if the incident happened overnight
4. And how difficult the terrain would be if the kids wandered off on their own

---

2. THE RAIL LINE

》》The distance from the Sullivan backyard fence to the railway line as approximately 22 meters.

A narrow band of spruce (2–3 m tall) separates the property from the gravel rail grade, which is about 3 meters wide.

• From the rail grade, the trailer roof is visible through the trees
• From inside the trailer (e.g., kitchen window), someone disappears from view after two steps
• The track is flat, firm, and leads to multiple exit points

》》 There’s no fence, ditch, or berm between the yard and the tracks. A child—or adult—could walk or drive directly onto it. Tire ruts suggest occasional maintenance or 4x4 traffic.

This may be the most discreet and accessible exit point for someone on foot or in a vehicle.

---

3. HIGHWAY 289

This utility corridor connects directly to Highway 289. There’s a slope leading to a bend in the road with a grassy shoulder and partial tree cover—ideal for briefly staging a vehicle.

》》Features:

• Gravel access paths and utility clearings
• Multiple side trails wide enough for 4x4s
• Tire tracks visible on satellite imagery
• Mixed terrain: brush, grass, seasonal wetland

》》Estimated travel times

Sullivan Residence to Hwy 289: 30–40 min for a child, 20 min for an adult

Pipeline Trail: Drivable, merges with Highway 289 at a bend

Drainage Strip: Seasonally wet but passable; lighter brush visible on 2024 imagery

》》Though remote, this area is walkable and discreet—especially for someone who knows it well.

---

4. THEORY REVIEW

This analysis isn’t meant to accuse. It’s an exploration of how each theory aligns with the terrain and logistics.

A. Organized Abduction

This scenario explores the possibility of an external offender—a stranger or peripheral acquaintance—who approached the property with intent or seized an opportunity. While purely speculative, this theory is considered due to the rural isolation of the home and the presence of evidence along a logical exit path.

Strengths

• Rear corridors (rail line and trail) allow covert approach and escape
• Physical evidence found in a logical direction of flight
• Sliding door is silent; backyard was reportedly unsupervised for periods of time

Weaknesses

• Unclear how an offender would know the children were home on a school day
• Would require local knowledge and confidence in handling two young children
• No vehicle or suspect has been publicly identified or described
• No BOLO issued; rural setting reduces witness potential but also creates opportunity for isolation

B. Internal Actor Inside the Home

This scenario considers the possibility that an internal actor—someone with access to the home—may have played a role, whether intentionally or through a panic response. This does not accuse any specific individual.

Strengths

• Complete control over timeline and narrative
• School absence call placed at 6:17 a.m. — suggests prior knowledge the kids would not attend
• Children reportedly seen on CCTV with parents the afternoon before
• No missing persons call made until midday — creates a possible 12–16 hour window (evening, overnight, and morning) where actions could have occurred
• Family led searchers directly to blanket site — could suggest foreknowledge or inside information

Weaknesses & Questions

• Where is the physical evidence—disturbed ground, cleanup signs, or forensic traces?
• If one adult was involved, was the other unaware—or later informed? Sustaining silence between two people over time is difficult.
• A $150,000 reward and intense public pressure would typically lead to information surfacing. Has no one confided in anyone?
• The home was searched with dogs and technology. While it’s possible for buried or concealed remains to be missed, the likelihood diminishes over time.
• The parents have since separated. This could indicate emotional strain from trauma, or it could point to diverging accounts of events.

---

C. Wandered Off

This scenario considers the possibility that the children may have left the yard on their own, drawn by curiosity. The terrain behind the home offers immediate access to open space and utility paths.


Strengths

• Immediate, unfenced access to open terrain directly behind the home
• Utility trails and gravel lanes may have looked like paths or roads, possibly drawing the children toward distant activity or sound

Weaknesses

• No consistent scent trail or item drop detected during searches
• For two young children to cover 1.5 miles of uneven terrain without leaving more trace is unlikely
• Presence of boot print and blanket could indicate staging, rather than genuine wandering

---

4. Movement

If the children—or someone with them—traveled from the Sullivan property to where the blanket and boot print were found (~1.4 to 1.8 miles away), here’s what stands out:

• Terrain is navigable on foot, especially for someone familiar with it
• Rail and pipeline trails create a direct, shielded corridor
• Visibility from surrounding roads or homes is limited
• Route is suitable for someone walking, carrying children, or pushing a cart/stroller

---

5. Motive

A. External Offender – Predatory Motive

• Most stranger abductions are sexually driven
• Often involve rapid harm and concealment
• Usually require opportunity or surveillance

B. Internal Actor – Stress or Panic Response

• Overwhelm, neglect, or emotional triggers can lead to poor decisions
• Concealment may stem from panic, fear of charges, or coercion
• No history of abuse charges—but absence of evidence ≠ evidence of absence

---

For me, this analysis isn’t about picking a single theory—it’s about exploring what could have happened, using geography, terrain, and known facts.

That said, many of the thoughtful responses to my initial overview have made me pause and reconsider certain assumptions.

What first felt like a very mysterious case may, in the end, have a more straightforward explanation.

I’m unable to see either a rail line or the pipeline clearance directly behind the Martell residence. If there was anything there at one time, it’s now overgrown with trees and bush. The landscape behind appears to be as heavily forested as that across the road. Are we all looking at the same Google Map image?

My understanding is the old rail line runs close to Landsdowne Station, a bit of a distance away. An old rail bed or reference to a pipeline ‘trail’ is somewhat misleading, as it offers an image of maintained pathways meant for recreational use. During the Apr 30- May 1st searches it was clarified by the media that is not so.

 

[Catcity]

Lately, a lot of people seem to be leaning toward the theory that the kids might still be alive but personally, the longer they remain missing, the more likely it seems that they’re no longer with us. I can’t think of any case with 2 kids missing this long that hasn’t ended in tragedy or just never being found.

One theory going around is that MBM arranged to have the children taken. But that raises questions.
If she wanted to leave Daniel why would she need to go to such an extreme and secretive length? Was Daniel extremely abusive and she felt desperate or scared? If that were the case it seems odd that Daniel has consistently supported her story from day one. He even claims to have seen Lilly just 20 minutes before the kids disappeared if that’s true and he was in bed with MBM at the time how could she have orchestrated a hand off of the children without him noticing?

Another theory floating around is that someone “bought” the kids or took them over a drug debt. This sounds more like a dramatic movie plot than something that actually happens in real life. While child trafficking and exploitation are real the idea that someone would purchase or abduct children to settle a debt especially in a case with this much attention is incredibly far-fetched and not supported by typical trafficking patterns or real world examples. Mostly teenagers are trafficked in Nova Scotia using the lover boy method.

I’m just really struggle to believe that someone has these kids and is keeping them alive. And if someone was in on the plan holding the children wouldn’t they have came forward by now? I think people are holding on hope they are alive but realistically it just seems so impossible to me.

Also during the press conference with the RCMP they stated the search would be "scaled back" after six days, with police saying the likelihood the children are alive is "very low." So they did indicated early on they don’t think these kids are alive.

 

[Ontario Mom]

I keep coming back to the mother leaving DM so quickly, and then blocking him and cutting off contact. It just feels as if "there is something there" there. I feel that separation is significant in this case. I just cannot figure out HOW.

At first I attributed that to her caving under her family's pressure.
When they showed up & accused DM of being responsible for the kids being missing, DM's mom kicked them off the property. Reasonable reaction, I'd say. Not to mention I'm sure in the moment, everyone's fuse was pretty short anyway.
But for her, she's got a choice to make. Side with her family or side with DM?
We know what choice she made but we really don't know why.
Maybe her family convinced her somehow it was better for her and the baby if she came and stayed with them until this was resolved? Maybe the same children's aid worker that visited a few months ago reached out and told her that was a good idea?

 

[Bigditch]

And yet, the questions they supposedly asked Daniel in the polygraph test were about Lilly and Jack's deaths.

This case is so confusing.

Good point.

 

[AddyFinch]

Curious, why do you think it makes zero sense for someone to emerge from the railtrack or pipeline trail?

To me that would be a stalker who was intent on getting those two kids. Premeditated for two little kids? Nah.

Beside, I don't know where everyone is looking but the train tracks are much further away to the east? And the pipe line cut is also much further north of the property on the other side of dense forest... Goggle 1407 Gairloch Rd and look at topography and distances. I don think there is a trail back there, only a logging road that starts to the east of the Hwy from house. And you can not see the house from the old RR line. Maybe I'm looking at the wrong map??

 

[su5ie]

Trust me I felt the same, but Im factoring in her personality, and that if she was told we need to put meadow in someone elses care for now, and she had the option to go with her. ( which may have been allowed if contact was supervised?) so she did. But I dont know if she was told not to talk to Daniel, or if after the family dispute she decided to high tail it outta there. its a bit overkill to block him but I kind of see her as a bit reactive.Maybe the block was in reaction to the family dispute.?

This also keeps swirling my brain . I'm finding that the hardest to comprehend

Was the relationship that fragile that a family argument caused her to high tail it out of there ,block DM , declare her relationship as single .

Leaving out the obvious stress caused by two of MBM's children going missing. Would a couple with cracks in their relationship break up so quickly . Would a couple go from sleeping in the same bed ( posted previously sleeping in same bed doesn't give indication of how well relationship is going ) to outright no contact . Would status of a relationship determine a mother seeing her child .? Even if they lived separately?

Only reason I can see for such a quick turnaround is if previous cps visit was because of the living conditions and or he may have been the reason for the report from the school .

I can understand if she was told meadow was being taken into care and the option of a family member being that carer ,it would make sense as you say if she chose to go with .

But would cps be so cruel as to mention this on the 3rd of may the day after her kids go missing seems quite harsh and would court papers not have to be approved?

I knew someone whose child was taken into care but it was a process , multiple visits and court dates and yes it was a sudden removal on the day in question without forewarning but they knew it was a possibility as they had been fighting to keep the child and obviously the social workers got the go ahead after all paperwork had been filed

 

[Sjöberg]

I am 99% the kids are dead, as sad as it is.

I feel that separation is significant in this case. I just cannot figure out HOW.

I have the same feeling, that this sort of separation is unusual enough, that it tells us something about either the relationship, M-s behaviour/character/state or M-s feelings/thoughts regarding D. But I really cannot put my finger on it - it might be a combination of many aspects we do not know about.

murder-by-parent (as opposed to dual abduction, wandering off).

Oh, I think it's the opposite - murder by parent is the obvious one everyone thinks about anyways AND is mostly unable to explore due to not wanting to victim-blame, as there are no POI-s or even a crime.

My personal feeling of "what happened" has setteled to this top three by now (slightly different from a few days back):

1. The kids wandered away and died of elements - by the sound of it, it was not uncommon that the kids were alone, parents admit to not having eyes on them, there is no evidence of anything else and the only evidence is a child-sized bootprint that no-one else is claiming to have made. The woods are big and the kids are small, no cadaver dogs have been used, it is common for bodies not to be found, M might have lashed out at D due to it being his responsibility to keep an eye on the older kids, the dynamic might be complicated in general.

2. The kids were killed by a close family member - in that case, at least one parent is likely to be involved and the boot print is likely to be planted. What is lowering this theory to me is the lack of obvious motive to kill two kids at once and the lack of any evidence of a murder found so far (these are not criminology phd students and even that one messed up big time). We have no motive, no suspect, no murder weapon, no bodies.

3. Something else happened - this is a lump sum of stranger abduction by the road (morning traffic, trailer with kids visible from the road, kids not supervised), the kids running away on purpose due to something happening at home (might explain the tensions between parents), someone else being involved (say, parents actually had someone over and cannot remember the last night) or whatever else manages to convince me a little. These all feel like it has to be some sort of a " the stars alligned" type of a situation - rare, but sometimes these happen. The boot print might then be irrelevant completely, the crime scene might be outside of current known locations, etc.