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

[musicaljoke]

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

The problem is the lack of evidence regarding what happened to the children that can be called "facts". This necessitates wording for the reward that is broad. I believe that rather than limiting the possibilities so that they exclude the likelihood that the children perished in the woods, it includes wording that covers all possibilities, including the chance that the children are still in the woods. The wording must remain broad so that no one eliminates what could be the explanation for their disappearance.

The search was as careful as could be managed under the circumstances. But because of the difficult terrain, the search area was relatively small, just the territory that could be searched during the timeframe when the children were likely still alive. And even then, the searchers knew that the children could have been missed.

 

[Tricia]

For as little as 10 cents a day, or 3 dollars a month, you can help keep the obnoxious advertisements off of Websleuths.
Plus, you will get all kinds of fun perks.
You can become a Websleuths Guardian.
One of the perks of becoming a Guardian is happening this Saturday, July 12th, from Noon to 8 PM Eastern, when we will have our first Zoom call with the mods and the Guardians.
To find out more about becoming a Guardian, CLICK HERE.
If you are already a Guardian and want to know more about the Zoom call this Saturday, CLICK HERE.
See you on Zoom
Tricia
PS. Please don't discuss on this thread. CLICK HERE and post any questions.

 

[su5ie]

The problem is the lack of evidence regarding what happened to the children that can be called "facts". This necessitates wording for the reward that is broad. I believe that rather than limiting the possibilities so that they exclude the likelihood that the children perished in the woods, it includes wording that covers all possibilities, including the chance that the children are still in the woods. The wording must remain broad so that no one eliminates what could be the explanation for their disappearance.

The search was as careful as could be managed under the circumstances. But because of the difficult terrain, the search area was relatively small, just the territory that could be searched during the timeframe when the children were likely still alive. And even then, the searchers knew that the children could have been missed.

If we only look at the Fact that the reward is only offered if foul play is suspected can we not make assumptions from that Fact that LE think strongly enough to offer the reward because the probability of foulplay being involved is higher than the probability of the kids just wandering into the woods of their own accord and getting lost .

What I would like to know is what evidence do they have that differentiates this case from Dylan E's case that indicates to them that this is more than a missing persons case and what those differences are that means lilly and jacks case meets the criteria for a reward and Dylans does not .

Obvious difference would be two kids instead of one but that seems to me to be too simple of an answer as to why.

 

[LivvyL]

In a poll what would people tick .

Kids wandered off □
Homicide direct or indirect □
Handover □
Abduction □
Other □ and what is your theory

I believe it’s # 2 but I don’t think it’s the parents. I think they went outside and someone took them from there. Maybe a family member of DM. He apparently has many in the area. Or a friend. A stranger seems unlikely but it would only take one pervert driving by and seeing them and lure them with something.

 

[RandyMcDonald]

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

Exactly. If they were going undercover for whatever reason, things would be different. Would it even have become a news item? There is absolutely no point in keeping an expensive and emotionally costly search going as cover.

 

[AddyFinch]

What I would like to know is what evidence do they have that differentiates this case from Dylan E's case that indicates to them that this is more than a missing persons case and what those differences are that means lilly and jacks case meets the criteria for a reward and Dylans does not .

Obvious difference would be two kids instead of one but that seems to me to be too simple of an answer as to why.

Just a clarification, the LE isn’t responsible for reward, but rather Nova Scotia Dept of Justice, upon the submission by LE. Here’s the current list of unsolved major crimes eligible for rewards. Nova Scotia Dept of Justice and yes, you are correct each case is assessed differently and probably eligible for varying amounts.i see Lilly and Jack are combined together rather than two separate cases.

 

[su5ie]

Just a clarification, the LE isn’t responsible for reward, but rather Nova Scotia Dept of Justice, upon the submission by LE. Here’s the current list of unsolved major crimes eligible for rewards. Nova Scotia Dept of Justice and yes, you are correct each case is assessed differently and probably eligible for varying amounts.i see Lilly and Jack are combined together rather than two separate cases.

Thank you AddyFinch for clarification of that , but my point still stands .
if jack and lilly are considered as missing because they took it upon themselves to wander off and unfortunately got lost and sars just could not find them because of difficult terrain. Does that not make it a missing persons case on par with Dylan E's and therefore like his case doesn't meet the criteria required to have the reward put forward.

what is it that this case indicates or what evidence has been given for the department of justice to feel that it does meet the criteria needed before a reward is offered with that criteria being suspected foulplay in a missing person's case .

DM states there is a lot going on behind the scenes regarding evidence that the public don't know about and that he can't share and I'm wondering is the evidence being withheld an indicator of foulplay which is the difference between the two cases

 

[MistyWaters]

If we only look at the Fact that the reward is only offered if foul play is suspected can we not make assumptions from that Fact that LE think strongly enough to offer the reward because the probability of foulplay being involved is higher than the probability of the kids just wandering into the woods of their own accord and getting lost .

What I would like to know is what evidence do they have that differentiates this case from Dylan E's case that indicates to them that this is more than a missing persons case and what those differences are that means lilly and jacks case meets the criteria for a reward and Dylans does not .

Obvious difference would be two kids instead of one but that seems to me to be too simple of an answer as to why.

Have you followed the case of Dylan E? it’s not the same, there is a strong theory. His boots were found, it’s believed he drowned in Salmon River. There is a thread here on Websleuths.

As for Lilly and Jack, it seems the RCMP don’t have one prevailing theory and it’s hoped the reward will offer solid leads to solve the mystery of their disappearance. Says to me they have the belief that somebody has information, for $150k they might talk.
JMO

 

[su5ie]

Have you followed the case of Dylan E? it’s not the same, there is a strong theory. His boots were found, it’s believed he drowned in Salmon River.

CANADA Thread 'Canada - Dylan Ehler, 3, Truro, Nova Scotia, 6 May 2020 *Reward*'

May 6, 2020

Localized Amber Alert, Truro, Nova Scotia

An emergency alert has been issued for the #Truro area of #NovaScotia this afternoon regarding a 3-year old missing boy by the name of Dylan Ehler. If you have any information regarding his whereabouts, contact Truro police immediately. #NS #MissingPerson
COVID-19 Nova Scotia on Twitter

• Lexiintoronto
• Replies: 116
• Forum: 2020's Missing

• 

As for Lilly and Jack, it seems the RCMP don’t have one prevailing theory and it’s hoped the reward will offer solid leads to solve their disappearance.
JMO

Yes I did read the opening note about his case in threads and had a read up about his case online after someone mentioned it in one of the previous threads .

I understand that because there was no solid leads in lilly and jacks case so the reward is being offered as an incentive but it still has to meet a certain criteria. And that is the point I'm making.

It was offered very quickly even though SARS and the RCMP are saying that the terrain was extremely difficult and it may have hindered the searchers finding the children .

And with all the speculation and opinions indicating possible homicide. I was wondering what was it that separated this case from others in to qualifying for the reward using the information available that it is not offered unless foulplay is suspected.

Do you see where I'm coming from

And it could be that the simplest answer is prior cps involvement which has transpired to be a red flag in other cases

 

[iveyguy]

An interesting observation: There are ~20 "Missing Persons" cases and 100+ "Homicide" cases on the list in the link above. In each and every Missing Persons case EXCEPT for Jack and Lilly's, there is verbiage similar to the following: "Investigators believe there are people who have information not yet offered to police that could result in locating <missing person>"... or... "an arrest and possible charges."

I don't know what to make of this, but it seems that for all other missing persons cases eligible for the reward, LE suspects something sinister. I would bet that this is the case here, too, despite it not being said "out loud" at this point.

 

[MistyWaters]

Yes I did read the opening note about his case in threads and had a read up about his case online after someone mentioned it in one of the previous threads .

I understand that because there was no solid leads in lilly and jacks case so the reward is being offered as an incentive but it still has to meet a certain criteria. And that is the point I'm making.

It was offered very quickly even though SARS and the RCMP are saying that the terrain was extremely difficult and it may have hindered the searchers finding the children .

And with all the speculation and opinions indicating possible homicide. I was wondering what was it that separated this case from others in to qualifying for the reward using the information available that it is not offered unless foulplay is suspected.

Do you see where I'm coming from

And it could be that the simplest answer is prior cps involvement which has transpired to be a red flag in other cases

If it might be a blatant announcement of foul play, no I didn’t get that impression when the announcement was made. It seemed to me the RCMP’s investigation is at a standstill and it’s stated it’s still a missing persons investigation (as opposed to a double homicide investigation),

It will be a month tomorrow July 11th since the last RCMP News Release.

BBM

Cash reward offered for information about missing Nova Scotia children

A cash reward is now being offered for information about the disappearance of two young children in Nova Scotia’s Pictou County.

www.ctvnews.ca

“That program does include provision for missing persons cases, so we have gone ahead and done that, and we’re hopeful that it will lead to some information that will solve the case,” said Druhan.

“It is a faster inclusion than we typically see, but we want to do everything that we can to support the investigation.”

RCMP Cpl. Guillaume Tremblay told CTV News the case remains a missing persons investigation and police are using all available resources to find the missing children.

“The Nova Scotia Major Rewards Program is also one of those tools and we hope that it might bring more information to light,” said Tremblay. “Our investigators are working very hard to locate Jack and Lilly. Certainly, we want to find out what led to their disappearance.”….

……Chris Lewis, CTV’s policing expert and former commissioner of the Ontario Provincial Police, says the rewards program is a risk-free step for police to take.

“What it tells me is, No. 1, that there’s a bit of stalemate somehow in their investigation in all likelihood, and they’re looking to get more conversation going,” said Lewis……

 

[Bigditch]

An interesting observation: There are ~20 "Missing Persons" cases and 100+ "Homicide" cases on the list in the link above. In each and every Missing Persons case EXCEPT for Jack and Lilly's, there is verbiage similar to the following: "Investigators believe there are people who have information not yet offered to police that could result in locating <missing person>"... or... "an arrest and possible charges."

I don't know what to make of this, but it seems that for all other missing persons cases eligible for the reward, LE suspects something sinister. I would bet that this is the case here, too, despite it not being said "out loud" at this point.

Yes there definitely sounds like there is something to this, a good example is the Amber Alert.

 

[AddyFinch]

Thank you AddyFinch for clarification of that , but my point still stands .
if jack and lilly are considered as missing because they took it upon themselves to wander off and unfortunately got lost and sars just could not find them because of difficult terrain. Does that not make it a missing persons case on par with Dylan E's and therefore like his case doesn't meet the criteria required to have the reward put forward.

what is it that this case indicates or what evidence has been given for the department of justice to feel that it does meet the criteria needed before a reward is offered with that criteria being suspected foulplay in a missing person's case .

DM states there is a lot going on behind the scenes regarding evidence that the public don't know about and that he can't share and I'm wondering is the evidence being withheld an indicator of foulplay which is the difference between the two cases

Yes, I agree. Someone explained to me the difference in the two cases from eligibility for monies could be, LE suspects death in one case but unable to prove without evidence and there are no persons involved in said case that are suspicious or who has reason to cause the child to be missing. I dont believe anything DM says either on SM or to MSM. Can only rely on LE silence….crazy isn’t it?

 

[AddyFinch]

Can someone recap the approved statement on the pink blanket for me?

 

[su5ie]

An interesting observation: There are ~20 "Missing Persons" cases and 100+ "Homicide" cases on the list in the link above. In each and every Missing Persons case EXCEPT for Jack and Lilly's, there is verbiage similar to the following: "Investigators believe there are people who have information not yet offered to police that could result in locating <missing person>"... or... "an arrest and possible charges."

I don't know what to make of this, but it seems that for all other missing persons cases eligible for the reward, LE suspects something sinister. I would bet that this is the case here, too, despite it not being said "out loud" at this point.

This is the point I was trying to make as it does seem that eligibility is based on as you say sinister reasons for the disappearances and suspicion of foulplay and all the other cases seem to follow this rule


So in my head that meant the justice department must have some reason not being shared that there is at least some probability that foul play was involved.


Sometimes it's hard for me to put across what it is I'm trying to say . I'm better at getting my point across verbally than in text so I really appreciate you simplifying and understanding what I meant by my post . Thank you

 

[su5ie]

I had thought that lilly and jacks case met the criteria for the reward based off the fact that there was prior cps involvement and that it is rare for two siblings to go missing without there being some form of evidence of them being in the woods lost .

I did not think they were deemed eligible because forensic evidence of foulplay was found and the RCMP were staying silent on that .

It is possible prior cps involvement and what ever the reasons for that involvement was enough to raise eyebrows and to cast enough doubt to add them to the list .Even though the current hypothesis is the terrain was tough we may just not have found them .

 

[Angelcat13]

I can think of a couple hypothetical possibilities. The first, Child Welfare was actively pursuing intervention for reasons we don’t know about and MBM panicked, not wanting the children arbitrarily placed in foster homes. Another is MBM required residential treatment for example detox or mental health and her mother agreed to childcare Meadow during that time but three children were too much. Daniel was excluded from the plans as the relationship was already on its last days.
JMO

All theories are limited by the minimal information which as been released including the nature of the connection between MBM and the First Nations band that she was a member of. ie Was she raised there?

The last News release by the RCMP was June 11th, a month ago this week. Nothing since, no request for tips, nothing. IMO that generally might indicate investigative progress and they don’t require assistance from the general public.

The problem I have with it being a case of one or both parents handing off the children to “hide” them due to an actual or perceived threat of CPS intervention/removal of the children is that Meadow is still with mom. I would think that if there were allegations significant enough for the parents to be so afraid that Lily & Jack may be removed from the home that they would go to these lengths to hide them, they would also have worried that there was also a significant risk that Meadow would also be removed. So why would Meadow have also not been “hidden”?

 

[Ontario Mom]

The problem I have with it being a case of one or both parents handing off the children to “hide” them due to an actual or perceived threat of CPS intervention/removal of the children is that Meadow is still with mom. I would think that if there were allegations significant enough for the parents to be so afraid that Lily & Jack may be removed from the home that they would go to these lengths to hide them, they would also have worried that there was also a significant risk that Meadow would also be removed. So why would Meadow have also not been “hidden”?

Just wondering, how do we know who Meadow is with? I don't think I've seen anything in MSM to confirm that. That being said, I don't think anyone handed these kids off to anyone in the first place.

 

[MistyWaters]

The problem I have with it being a case of one or both parents handing off the children to “hide” them due to an actual or perceived threat of CPS intervention/removal of the children is that Meadow is still with mom. I would think that if there were allegations significant enough for the parents to be so afraid that Lily & Jack may be removed from the home that they would go to these lengths to hide them, they would also have worried that there was also a significant risk that Meadow would also be removed. So why would Meadow have also not been “hidden”?

MBM left with her mother and both are living with her, as far as we know. The mother’s supervisory presence and DM’s absence could be reason but this is merely speculation.

 

[MistyWaters]

Just wondering, how do we know who Meadow is with? I don't think I've seen anything in MSM to confirm that. That being said, I don't think anyone handed these kids off to anyone in the first place.

That’s right, we really know nothing. Two and half months have gone by and situations are never frozen in time. Who Meadow is with, where is MBM or even if the RCMP has made any investigative progress? It does feel like a cold case.