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

[rosesfromangels]

I think the title of this thread is unintentionally misleading. We don’t know that the children “wandered from their home”. The reality could be quite different.

Amateur opinion and speculation

 

[KSwizzle]

Yeah, I still believe one or both parents know where the children's (unfortunately) remains are.

I have a bad feeling this is just going to fade into the background as a cold case with no resolution

 

[Bigditch]

Hmmm, not to doubt your theory of accidental death but for the life of me I don’t now what ‘hatch’ is in or around a mobile home that would be airtight. I had the misfortune of living in one for several years in my early years. When DM made that comment about LE searching with a flashlight (I thought he mentioned them sending a drone underneath as well) I understood he was referring to the area beneath the mobile home. A mobile home sits about a meter or so above ground and typically skirting is installed to cover that parameter, made from pieces of plywood not only for aesthetics but to prevent the water and sewer pipes under the floor of the home from freezing in the winter. It also helps to prevent critters from entering the home from openings in and around the pipes. But air still circulates underneath, it’s never airtight especially considering given the photos of this one which indicate many pieces of skirting to be missing.
JMO

The drone was sent into an abandoned mine shaft.

 

[Slebby]

Some babies wake several times through out the night. Mine did.

Mine did too, well, not really at 16 months, but I’m sure some babies do. Meadow may have woken in the night. The fact remains, Meadow was not placing demands on MBM or DM in the morning. When interviewed, MBM said she was “drifting in and out of sleep”. DM said MBM and Meadow were sleeping, and he was “by no means in a deep sleep” or something to that effect. Neither said they were tending to M, as she was asleep.
Whatever caused these adults to require a sleep in, it might have seemed easier to call the older kids in sick, rather than get up and get them ready for school and down to the bus stop.
It’s unusual to me, having raised my own kids. 99 percent of the time I was up before my kids, no matter how well I slept. Sleeping in was never a thing for me.

Just my experience and my opinion.

 

[abanddb123]

Mine did too, well, not really at 16 months, but I’m sure some babies do. Meadow may have woken in the night. The fact remains, Meadow was not placing demands on MBM or DM in the morning. When interviewed, MBM said she was “drifting in and out of sleep”. DM said MBM and Meadow were sleeping, and he was “by no means in a deep sleep” or something to that effect. Neither said they were tending to M, as she was asleep.
Whatever caused these adults to require a sleep in, it might have seemed easier to call the older kids in sick, rather than get up and get them ready for school and down to the bus stop.
It’s unusual to me, having raised my own kids. 99 percent of the time I was up before my kids, no matter how well I slept. Sleeping in was never a thing for me.

Just my experience and my opinion.

The facts remain Meadow wasn't placing demands on the parents??? <modsnip> The parents said she was sleeping. This is far different from Meadow not being a demanding baby. <modsnip: What the parents say is NOT hearsay>

 

[abanddb123]

Moo, The kids having Autism or not, we don't have a diagnosis, only what step daddy said. Good grief. Moo, we are spending so much time on the subject when we have no proof. We have 2 missing siblings, that are probably dead. If they are dead, then the Autism doesn't have anything to do with anything, other than kids with any and I mean any disability can be likely to be taken advantage of . But we have no proof. MOO

 

[Slebby]

The facts remain Meadow wasn't placing demands on the parents??? <modsnip> The parents said she was sleeping. This is far different from Meadow not being a demanding baby. <modsnip: What the parents say is NOT hearsay>

I said nothing about whether Meadow is a demanding baby.

What I said was “The fact remains Meadow was not placing demands on MBM or DM in the morning”.
We know this from their words in their interviews, DM and MBM.
When MBM said she was “drifting in and out of sleep” that is not hearsay because she was speaking to her own experience.
When DM said he was “by no means in a deep sleep” that is not hearsay because he was speaking to his own experience.
I hope you’re not suggesting we can’t quote what people say as it is hearsay. We are not in a court of law. What I understand on Websleuths and in this thread, we can do as I have done, stated what can be found on MSM.

IMO

 

[The Zookeeper]

I’m so afraid that this case is going to continue to be unresolved like the Summer Wells case. It’s so hard to fathom that there is no evidence at all as to what happened to these precious children.

 

[abanddb123]

I said nothing about whether Meadow is a demanding baby.

What I said was “The fact remains Meadow was not placing demands on MBM or DM in the morning”.
We know this from their words in their interviews, DM and MBM.
When MBM said she was “drifting in and out of sleep” that is not hearsay because she was speaking to her own experience.
When DM said he was “by no means in a deep sleep” that is not hearsay because he was speaking to his own experience.
I hope you’re not suggesting we can’t quote what people say as it is hearsay. We are not in a court of law. What I understand on Websleuths and in this thread, we can do as I have done, stated what can be found on MSM.

IMO

Absolutely u can, I didn't mean to sound rude. I personally think anything the parents say is null, unless it's comes from Canada's Law enforcement. It is null. We only have certain facts.

 

[AnnieOakley123]

I said nothing about whether Meadow is a demanding baby.

What I said was “The fact remains Meadow was not placing demands on MBM or DM in the morning”.
We know this from their words in their interviews, DM and MBM.
When MBM said she was “drifting in and out of sleep” that is not hearsay because she was speaking to her own experience.
When DM said he was “by no means in a deep sleep” that is not hearsay because he was speaking to his own experience.
I hope you’re not suggesting we can’t quote what people say as it is hearsay. We are not in a court of law. What I understand on Websleuths and in this thread, we can do as I have done, stated what can be found on MSM.

IMO

What MBM and DM say is still hearsay, because it cannot be substantiated as truth. They can say whatever they wish to MSM interviewers and police, but it is not fact or evidence unless it is supported by proof. They are each and both providing a narrative to the public about what they want people to believe. We don't have evidence that any of it is true, most specifically, that the two children left the trailer and wandered off into the woods. There is no police evidence to suggest that is true. Nobody is saying you can't quote what people say in MSM, but you can't claim it as factual or as evidence in this case.

 

[Ontario Mom]

What MBM and DM say is still hearsay, because it cannot be substantiated as truth. They can say whatever they wish to MSM interviewers and police, but it is not fact or evidence unless it is supported by proof. They are each and both providing a narrative to the public about what they want people to believe. We don't have evidence that any of it is true, most specifically, that the two children left the trailer and wandered off into the woods. There is no police evidence to suggest that is true. Nobody is saying you can't quote what people say in MSM, but you can't claim it as factual or as evidence in this case.

As far as I understand it that isn't technically the definition of hearsay.
A first person statement of events that they experienced is just that.
If they began telling the public or LE what someone else said, that's hearsay.

 

[Professor Moriarty]

If someone were to say that they were abducted by aliens and describe how they flew around in a spaceship with little green men, that would be their "evidence" or testimony. If they were to go into the witness box ("took the stand" in US language) they would give their "evidence" that they were abducted by aliens.

Whether you believe it or not is another matter. You might say it is not probative evidence, not compelling evidence or not credible evidence, you might think that they are crazy, but these judgements relate to your view of the quality of the evidence. It is evidence nonetheless.

 

[musicaljoke]

2 I think the SAR lady saying she believes the kids are still out there wasn’t really allowed to say anything different. It’s not her job to speculate on other theories, and her comment gave a lot of people hope. But I’m not sure if that was her genuine opinion or just the safest thing to say to the news to avoid getting in trouble or dragged into the circus

She could have said that they were able to look carefully into every nook and cranny and that she believed that the kids would have been found if they were in the woods.

But she didn't say that, not because she didn't have authority to do so, but because the forest is a jumbled mess after the hurricane knocked trees down in every direction. She knew that the team was not able to do a thorough search and that the kids could be hidden from view.

 

[10ofRods]

These are quite the opposites

Yes, they are opposites, but still among the more common scenarios.

The scenario in which the two small children leave the house together and wander off is, I suppose, still on the table. If it's true that no cadaver dog was used in the woods, I do wonder what LE is actually thinking. They certainly know more than we do.

I find the "hidden among relatives" theory to be less strong than "wandered off" or "homicide."

And if they did wander off, isn't stranger abduction still on the table, theoretically?

JMO

 

[musicaljoke]

Some babies wake several times through out the night. Mine did.

Indeed, and if the older kids were having symptoms of a cold, the baby might have been coming down with it as well.

 

[missourimom2]

Indeed, and if the older kids were having symptoms of a cold, the baby might have been coming down with it as well.

Yes, and the reason I said that is because it’s harder to get moving in the morning when you’ve been up with a baby during the night.

Do we know if law enforcement is still actively working on the case?

 

[su5ie]

Hmmm, not to doubt your theory of accidental death but for the life of me I don’t now what ‘hatch’ is in or around a mobile home that would be airtight. I had the misfortune of living in one for several years in my early years. When DM made that comment about LE searching with a flashlight (I thought he mentioned them sending a drone underneath as well) I understood he was referring to the area beneath the mobile home. A mobile home sits about a meter or so above ground and typically skirting is installed to cover that parameter, made from pieces of plywood not only for aesthetics but to prevent the water and sewer pipes under the floor of the home from freezing in the winter. It also helps to prevent critters from entering the home from openings in and around the pipes. But air still circulates underneath, it’s never airtight especially considering given the photos of this one which indicate many pieces of skirting to be missing.
JMO

Thank you for that insight I thought it might have been a hatch for storage

 

[iveyguy]

Do we know if law enforcement is still actively working on the case?

The RCMP was asked for an update last week by Global News. They referred them to the latest news release, issued June 11, that said "the investigation continues and may take longer than we all hoped.”

One of the things that I've learned in other criminal cases is that detailed digital evidence can take a considerable amount of time - weeks & months - to procure, decipher, and analyze. Basic evidence, like text messages and phone call records, is often available for analysis very quickly, but analyzing more detailed evidence (cell phone tower pings & geolocation tracking) can be a much longer process. I think this is what is happening now... the RCMP are combing through digital evidence, trying to find evidence that links somebody to these children.

 

[su5ie]

She could have said that they were able to look carefully into every nook and cranny and that she believed that the kids would have been found if they were in the woods.

But she didn't say that, not because she didn't have authority to do so, but because the forest is a jumbled mess after the hurricane knocked trees down in every direction. She knew that the team was not able to do a thorough search and that the kids could be hidden from view.

We can read into words and what was said and why it was said and what could have been said and what I would say etc but we have one fact that we can take as an indication that this case is considered to be more than a case of children wandering into a storm effected landscape and its the big elephant in the room when considering what the searchers say about how difficult a terrain it is to search and it is the putting up of a reward .

This reward is not offered for lost children it is offered for missing people where foul play is suspected to be the cause of the disappearance and if we look at the specific wording and read between the lines The appeal from LE in their offering of the reward tells us a lot .

The wording is " we are offering up to $150,000 Canadian dollars for any information that leads to us finding out ( finding) what happened to lilly and jack and solving this case .

So hypothetically if I approach LE and say I found lilly and jack in the woods . I'm not going to recieve the reward because they want evidence of how they got there and a lead to an arrest.

Which tells me they don't believe the kids just slipped out and wandered into the woods .

The search team stated they weren't just looking for lilly and jack , they were looking for clues they were in the woods . So clues like freshly broken twigs , undergrowth recently flattened , clues in nature that you or I would not think of .

I imagine search teams are made up of a number of specialists and volunteers. Specialists in tracking and botanics . Minut changes in nature that show someone has recently been through an area .

A blade of grass to the untrained eye looks like a blade of grass but specialists can distinguish between a natural bend in a flower or fern to one even lightly trod on . And a time frame of when said bend happened

So I do think with how meticulous and vast the search was there would have been evidence of the children being through certain parts of the woods and this has not been said .

So with the combination of the reward and no report of the children being tracked as entering the woods . Imo sars can say things as broadly and vaguely as they like but it doesn't change the facts

 

[Serononin]

Weather in Alaska iffy, but still enjoying.
My final take after much discussion…mother has taken children for their protection. Guess I’m not allowed to say here reason for protection.Children not in hiding, but living elsewhere. LE aware of situation hence no further comments.
………..or….. double homocide.
No abduction. No accidental death. Pink blanket positioning was his mistake and revealation of truth.
Keep sleuthing.

I feel like if LE was aware that the kids were safe, their case would've been taken off the NS rewards for major unsolved crimes list