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 am assuming scene has been released by LE. Has MBM returned to gather her belongings and Meadows? Has she retrieved her car? Has she had any contact with DM or his family/friends?

 

[musicaljoke]

This is fastly becoming a story of… two kids wandered into woods, end of story.
Sad that you can erase two lives like that, without a trace.
Scary that two people aren’t being held accountable for disappearance, death, or ????
Odd that so many rumours, and zero evidence, and zero confirmation of said rumours
Strange behaviour of a grieving mother and her family and friends
Very odd case

If they are in the woods, it is going to be really difficult to find them. Perhaps next Spring, as soon as the snow is gone, a recovery search could be arranged. But the window of opportunity for finding the children is so small between the snow leaving and the new growth covering the ground. Hopefully the pink backpack will attract someone's eye before the colour is bleached out and it too melds into the ground.

 

[Alice Ramnit]

I am assuming scene has been released by LE. Has MBM returned to gather her belongings and Meadows? Has she retrieved her car? Has she had any contact with DM or his family/friends?

All good questions and if she (or a representative) hasn't...why not?

 

[Ontario Mom]

All good questions and if she (or a representative) hasn't...why not?

It's curious to me that we (society) have become so used to "someone from the family" addressing the media that we've actually come to expect it, and question motives if "someone from the family" doesn't step up to a podium somewhere with something to say to us. And then we dissect every word they say to see if we actually believe them or not.

I don't know anything about the mother's family but if they're very private people and tend to guard that privacy fiercely (as many families do) then they'll never speak to the media and don't feel any obligation to appoint a spokesperson for that task. From all I've seen in MSM they are/have been speaking to and being cooperative with LE, and that's what matters most.

 

[AddyFinch]

Maybe if the Nova Scotia gets a light winter it will be better to locate. Ferns, grasses, weeds get so high in summer. It would be difficult in fall if there are any deciduous trees mixed with evergreens, all those leaves will bury stuff, but I think Nova Scotia is mostly spruce and maybe another type of evergreen???? Good thinking on the colour of the backpack tho.

 

[AddyFinch]

All good questions and if she (or a representative) hasn't...why not?

I think of her exit strategy, if she had one vs emergency flight: I don't think DM described anything missing or her desire to leave.
Leaving with kids has many needs. Did she preplan and remove stuff pre-exit? To me it looks like spur of the moment, and nothing taken, which makes me think it was a panic exit, or one not very well thought through.
Kids clothes, birth certificates, photos, diapers, favourite toys, MBM clothes, documents, personal effects? To me that's a huge undertaking similar to packing for a vacation with kids, but on a level of "knowing you're not returning". If it was preplanned, then someone helped her, or she slowly removed stuff to her car and relocated it prior.
I wonder if kids had a passport? And the toddler would need a letter from father to enter another country, so if the kids have been removed, I don't think it was out of country, and I would assume having gone thru one custody battle with exhusband, she would know there was another one coming up with DM, so she would stay close to those services in her area.
I dont' think this was preplanned, this event was sudden, whatever it was.
I wonder if LE investigated a hit and run event? Their neighbour were so far apart, I doubt any security cameras picked up anything other than cars frequently in area. There are curves at each end of their driveway.

 

[Alice Ramnit]

It's curious to me that we (society) have become so used to "someone from the family" addressing the media that we've actually come to expect it, and question motives if "someone from the family" doesn't step up to a podium somewhere with something to say to us. And then we dissect every word they say to see if we actually believe them or not.

I don't know anything about the mother's family but if they're very private people and tend to guard that privacy fiercely (as many families do) then they'll never speak to the media and don't feel any obligation to appoint a spokesperson for that task. From all I've seen in MSM they are/have been speaking to and being cooperative with LE, and that's what matters most.

I wasn't really referring to the question of why hasn't she or her family spoken to the media. I am more interested in whether she has been back to the home, collected her car and/or any belongings for herself or the baby. When I referred to a 'representative' I was thinking of a family member/a friend/a social worker or perhaps with a police escort.

 

[missourimom2]

Are we allowed to share possibilities of what someone could have done/ what could have happened? There are a couple ideas I haven’t heard discussed.

 

[iveyguy]

Does anyone know if there has been discussion on the brother who lived on the property?

There has not. There has been virtually nothing written or documented about him except for a Globe & Mail article from early May where he was pictured sitting on a red Honda FourTrax ATV looking away from the camera. DM was in the same picture and was looking downward. It has not been confirmed if he lived at the property. That's about all the details we have...

 

[missourimom2]

1) what if someone placed them in the woods? They would not be eager to look for them and could possibly claim abduction

2) what if they were (illegally) placed for private adoption thinking they were placing them in a loving home. I don’t know how often this happens, but I have heard of it happening and it didn’t end up being a loving home

 

[Gemmie]

If she suspects him, why then did she corroborate his story about them being together in bed that morning?

Could be the same reason Jennifer Soto told LE and MSM that "they" (her and Stephan Sterns) dropped her (then deceased, but she likely didn't know it at the time) daughter off a block from school, when she did NOT go with SS. He drive a deceased Maddie by the school all by himself. And that reason is one only those 2 women know IMO.

 

[Bigditch]

It's curious to me that we (society) have become so used to "someone from the family" addressing the media that we've actually come to expect it, and question motives if "someone from the family" doesn't step up to a podium somewhere with something to say to us. And then we dissect every word they say to see if we actually believe them or not.

I don't know anything about the mother's family but if they're very private people and tend to guard that privacy fiercely (as many families do) then they'll never speak to the media and don't feel any obligation to appoint a spokesperson for that task. From all I've seen in MSM they are/have been speaking to and being cooperative with LE, and that's what matters most.

I'm with you on that one.

"Innocent until proven guilty".

 

[OneLove]

So how was he able to do anything to the children? I do not understand.

What was done to the children could have begun the night before since they were seen at the store and had their boots on and the backpack was likely with them also. Were they seen at the store with Daniel or Maleya the night before? If the mom was sleeping or heavily drugged when they returned home, she may have never seen them the night before either. Daniel may have said he put them to bed. If the kids accidentally got into some drugs or were intentionally given drugs to quiet them or put them to sleep, they may have been zonked by the time they got home. Maybe Daniel just *told* Maleya he put them to bed. That the boots and backpack are missing along with the kids seems likely significant.

~~Neither of these kids were Daniel's. He was not especially well off in any respect. If there was no relief in responsibility from the children's father's involvement and no child support, no grandparent or family support at least from the father's side, his own mother & brother likely had little inner or outer resources to help, and if he struggled under the burden of parenting them along with his own new young child, we don't really know what kind of parenting they received. If any possible drug addiction or hormonol/neural transmitter issues created chemical issues such as short tempers and/or impatience, the pressures could have been very high. A fair number of parents with far greater resources and support have resorted to legal substances like benadryl to induce sleep and there have been unintentional deaths from doing so.

There are so so many possibilities for what could have happened and when between when the kids were last seen alive and when they were reported missing.

 

[Bigditch]

I think of her exit strategy, if she had one vs emergency flight: I don't think DM described anything missing or her desire to leave.
Leaving with kids has many needs. Did she preplan and remove stuff pre-exit? To me it looks like spur of the moment, and nothing taken, which makes me think it was a panic exit, or one not very well thought through.
Kids clothes, birth certificates, photos, diapers, favourite toys, MBM clothes, documents, personal effects? To me that's a huge undertaking similar to packing for a vacation with kids, but on a level of "knowing you're not returning". If it was preplanned, then someone helped her, or she slowly removed stuff to her car and relocated it prior.
I wonder if kids had a passport? And the toddler would need a letter from father to enter another country, so if the kids have been removed, I don't think it was out of country, and I would assume having gone thru one custody battle with exhusband, she would know there was another one coming up with DM, so she would stay close to those services in her area.
I dont' think this was preplanned, this event was sudden, whatever it was.
I wonder if LE investigated a hit and run event? Their neighbour were so far apart, I doubt any security cameras picked up anything other than cars frequently in area. There are curves at each end of their driveway.

I don't think there was a custody battle with Cody. I believe he just walked away, or so the story goes.

MBM's exit did seem a bit panicky, however seeing LE RCMP infiltrate her yard might have been a little intimidating. Plus, I don't think band members are that chummy with RCMP these days. imo

 

[su5ie]

It's curious to me that we (society) have become so used to "someone from the family" addressing the media that we've actually come to expect it, and question motives if "someone from the family" doesn't step up to a podium somewhere with something to say to us. And then we dissect every word they say to see if we actually believe them or not.

I don't know anything about the mother's family but if they're very private people and tend to guard that privacy fiercely (as many families do) then they'll never speak to the media and don't feel any obligation to appoint a spokesperson for that task. From all I've seen in MSM they are/have been speaking to and being cooperative with LE, and that's what matters most.

I still feel it is weird imo ,

Yes as a society we have gotten use to parents of missing children becoming celebrity like and doing multiple interviews and appeals .similar to what Daniel is doing .

And I'm not saying I agree with this type of intrusion into the lives of distressed parents and more often than not they themselves are trying to find answers to the questions being put to them by inquisitive reporters but I will say for every 10000 and more kids that go missing each year prehaps there is one child's case out of that figure that gets media attention . Many many more are a mere photograph in a folder held in some dusty run down office .

So I do think it's weird that a parent doesn't utilise that opportunity, when the media are willing to engage and prehaps in a way by elevating your child's case into public consciousness might help get it solved or push authorities into doing all they can to investigate because they are more likely to be under a lot more pressure and scrutiny to get the job done ,when the world's eyes are watching JMHO

<modsnip - no link/rumor>

 

[shetalksinstereo]

I don't really have a theory about what happened to the children; but, whatever it was, it's possible that MBM exited quickly because she was worried about losing her 3rd child as a result, meaning having the baby removed due to suspected parental neglect for the two missing children.

 

[musicaljoke]

1) what if someone placed them in the woods? They would not be eager to look for them and could possibly claim abduction

2) what if they were (illegally) placed for private adoption thinking they were placing them in a loving home. I don’t know how often this happens, but I have heard of it happening and it didn’t end up being a loving home

If placed in the woods there would be a huge risk that the kids would be found and evidence would lead to the person that placed them there. People tend to go into the woods just a safe distance from the road so that they will not get lost. Would anyone go deep into the woods with two children? Probably not in the NS woods that had been so badly upturned by the hurricane that the search parties had a hard time walking.

 

[Toniab329]

A question for those who think the the parents know what happened: why would they have called the police so quickly?

The children were seen with DM the evening before they disappeared, and they'd already been marked absent for school that Friday. If they had an accident, or were killed, or were handed off to other people for whatever reason--they could've waited until Monday at least to report them missing. If DM's family happened to ask, they could've told them they were visiting their maternal grandparents. I don't know how often M (I can't think of her initials!) saw her family, but even if they were really close, surely she could've made an excuse -- Lily's cough, for example-- to not see them for one weekend.

I just think it would be desirable to have more time to either get rid of evidence, or for the adults they were given to to get out of town, or for whatEVER the trail is to go cold(er). I mean, obviously no extra time was needed, since the children haven't been found yet--but they wouldn't have known that.

I'm stumped on this. I don't think the kids would have wandered so far into the woods they haven't been found, but for several reasons, I don't feel like either of these adults had anything to do with it.

 

[TMich6811]

I

A question for those who think the the parents know what happened: why would they have called the police so quickly?

The children were seen with DM the evening before they disappeared, and they'd already been marked absent for school that Friday. If they had an accident, or were killed, or were handed off to other people for whatever reason--they could've waited until Monday at least to report them missing. If DM's family happened to ask, they could've told them they were visiting their maternal grandparents. I don't know how often M (I can't think of her initials!) saw her family, but even if they were really close, surely she could've made an excuse -- Lily's cough, for example-- to not see them for one weekend.

I just think it would be desirable to have more time to either get rid of evidence, or for the adults they were given to to get out of town, or for whatEVER the trail is to go cold(er). I mean, obviously no extra time was needed, since the children haven't been found yet--but they wouldn't have known that.

I'm stumped on this. I don't think the kids would have wandered so far into the woods they haven't been found, but for several reasons, I don't feel like either of these adults had anything to do with it.

because another adult lived on the property and may have asked where they were is my opinion

 

[Lexiintoronto]

https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/video/9.6805395

The recent CBC interview with SAR leader Amy Hansen. The link and some quotes have been previously posted here.

My transcription. It’s verbatim, but I have edited out some of the filler words (um, ah, like, so, etc.), and have corrected grammar in some places so as to avoid any confusion. Please excuse any typos, and feel free to offer any corrections.

Note: Initially Amy says ‘boot prints’, and later uses the singular ‘boot print’. I checked the CC and I’m also going by what I heard. I left both versions, but she may have misspoke.

Reporter (R): Do you think those kids are in the woods?

SAR leader, Amy Hansen (AH): From everything I've seen, yes.

We got the first call shortly after 11
on Friday morning, on the 2nd, that
there were two children lost up here in
Lansdowne. We just deployed the
team and got here as fast as we could.

R: And when you got that first call did
anything stand out about that first call
as unique or unusual or- -

AH: - - it's not
common to have two lost subjects in that
kind of scenario— with kids like that—
it's not common to have the two. It's not
uncommon if a pair of hikers are overdue
or something like that, but with kids it
is a little uncommon to have two gone
missing.

R: Have you found anything?

AH: The only thing that we had were the boot prints. We still cannot 100%
say that they belong to the children but
that was pretty much the only thing that
we had.

R: You think they're in the woods?

AH: I have not been told anything to lead me to any other conclusion at this point.

R: Why can't you find them?

AH: They're small. They'd be hiding. They would have crawled underneath something, probably, when they got tired…they could have gone further than what we searched.
There are all kinds of scenarios, unfortunately.

(AH speaking, pointing out part of the search area): …so we're on Lansdowne Road. It was one of the areas that was searched extensively, as you can tell from
the flagging tape in the woods.

When teams are tasked, they get a bearing or a waypoint—or both— for where they are to start. So they come down into the woods and they'll tie a ribbon so they know
where their start point is. And then they
start on their compass bearing into the
woods.

As you can see: you can see another
flag. So this is where they were going
straight into the woods. So they're
following their bearing, putting their
flag down and searching at the same time,
coming up through all of this stuff.

R: How much of this is down because of Fiona? (The reporter is referring to Hurricane Fiona that hit parts of Nova Scotia hard in 2022).

AH: A lot of this is down because of Fiona, and some of it could have come down after
the fact. But the vast majority of it was
probably from Fiona.

(AH continuing on with describing the technical side of searching) : …so grid searching comes in different
types. We have type one, type two, and
type three. A type one is fairly open, so
if we're looking more for signs of
travel —or, say larger objects—if we
know they have backpack or something
like that, we can space people out, you
know, 10 - 20 m apart, especially if we
think somebody's going to be responsive.
If they're going to talk to us, (if)
they're calling to us, we'll do open.

We were doing closed grid, or type two, so
teams were very close together. Because
we were expecting children to be hiding.
A lot of children that age range will
hide.

So if we're 20 m apart in some of
these woods you can't see 2 feet away
from you. There would be places
where teams would be almost able to
touch their fingertips together and they
couldn't actually see each other through
the bushes, it's that thick in places.

R: So how does this compare to what your
teams have been dealing with? (Referring to the wooded area where this interview was taking place).

AH: This is actually fairly mild compared to some of the areas.

R: Mild? It looks like such a mess.

AH: It does look like a mess, and you got the thorn bushes and the dead falls. But
there are places that are actually a lot
worse. But there are places that are a
little bit better as well.

R: But what would be worse?

AH: A lot more deadfall. You can
get places where it's just deadfall on
top of deadfall on top of deadfall, and
you literally have to crawl underneath
of it or climb over top of it.

R: You were also saying, though, to the
general public: ‘don't come help us’. Why
did you say that?

AH: We don't want the general public in the
area because we use a lot of very
specialized assets like canines that are
looking for the freshest human scent
they can find. So if we have somebody
from the public go through an area, and
we don't know—but we were deliberately
waiting to send a canine into that area—
that canine could get on the track from
that person. Then we've just wasted
that resource because once that dog's
probably done its track, they're probably
exhausted and can't go out and do
anything else.

And same with drones. If we're flying a drone over the area and
we get a heat signature from somebody in
an area and we can't identify who or
what it is, then we have to send G-SAR
resources in or police resources to
confirm who that is. And in the same
breath, it all —a lot of it— comes down to
training. Our people are trained to
look for the little things: the
footprints, the pieces of clothing that
are discarded, the broken branches, spots
where somebody might have crawled in
underneath something and had a nap or
something like that. So they're very
‘clue sensitive’, is what we call it. They're clue finders. We're not just looking for the two children. We're looking for all the evidence of them going through the area, which is a big part of what we do.

When the boot print was found, we told the team just to send us the coordinates. We got a picture: *yeah it looks like a children's
rubber boot print*, which is what we were
looking for.

(We) conversed with the incident commander: *yeah we're going to send*. We sent an RCMP K9 in first, then we sent
human tracking teams: man
trackers. We have some members that
have been trained to do tracking
themselves. We sent them in and we did
some grid searching in the area to see,
just to follow up. Then the RCMP
forensics unit went in and actually did
a cast of the boot print.

We did investigate a few wells and mine shafts. The teams came across them in the woods. They would look in them as best they could. There was one mine shaft we
actually ended up flying a drone into (it) to
see if there was any sign of anything
going in there— because it wasn't
safe to send people in. There was no
sign of any disturbance or anything
inside the mineshaft.

I know they're still doing (an) investigation. Anytime a tip comes in they follow right up on it.

R: So do you feel it's been searched as well as it can be searched?

AH: What has been searched has been searched very well. It's very extensive with over 12,000 hours put in on the search. It's pretty much unheard of in this province.

All searches are hard unless we have a
good ending, obviously, but some hit
closer to home than others do. There were
members that couldn't bring themselves
to call the names, but other people on
the team were, so it wasn't impeding the
search effort. Because of personal
reasons they couldn't actually
physically call for the names themselves.

R: They just couldn't say the words.

AH: They couldn't get it out, no, for whatever reason they had. And there were people coming to the end of it that —whether it was physically they were just exhausted or mentally exhausted— that couldn't return to the search area as well. So we saw a little bit lower numbers on some of the revisit searches that we did with some of the teams for that first weekend.

R: The search was scaled back on May 7th.
What were you told when you got that
call? (Revisit call to return to the search.) Like— why were you going back?

AH: It was actually a conversation. I was
meeting with Major Crimes (Unit) on a regular basis, going through the paperwork from the search and showing them what was covered and what wasn't covered. It
was actually a conversation had between
us that: *yeah there's some areas that we
would like to go in and get covered off better*, or new areas that we said
*well there's a possibility*. So we want to
just go search those areas as well.
It's not uncommon for us to go back to a
search if we haven't found something.

R: What prompted, then, the second weekend search?

AH: Basically the same thing—just
more areas that we really wanted to see
get covered and just expand out on what
we had done.

R: So just to be clear: it was
not as a result of new information?

AH: It was not, no.

R: I think it gave some people
in the public hope - -

AH: - -yes- -

R: - - you know, like, *oh
maybe they found something there in that
area they're looking*. It wasn't that.

AH: It was not. It was just that we wanted to extend out our search area and cover off areas.

Most of these people, they're all
volunteers, they just want to find the
kids and bring them home. So they're more
than willing to keep coming back and
keep searching. Unfortunately, at this
point, unless something comes up we're
probably not going to be back. But that
being said, somebody could find something
that brings us back. Children just bring
out the best in people. When we're in a
situation like this everybody just wants
to come and do everything they can.