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

[Ontario Mom]

She also says that if she heard them leave the fenced area she would have heard lily say come on Jacky- or something and she didn’t hear any of that

The way she describes that morning it sure sounds more beleivable now, that those kids got into a car and were driven away. It was just suddenly silent outside, exactly the way it would be if that's what happened.

 

[TMich6811]

The way she describes that morning it sure sounds more beleivable now, that those kids got into a car and were driven away. It was just suddenly silent outside, exactly the way it would be if that's what happened.

I struggle though if she could hear as good then she probably would have heard a vehicle

 

[Ontario Mom]

I struggle though if she could hear as good then she probably would have heard a vehicle

Not if she drifted off to sleep like she said she did, then woke up to hearing Daniel calling for them.

Honestly, it tracks. I never really gave much credence to the "abducted" theory but it's making more sense now. Maybe not "abducted" abducted, but driven away by someone.

 

[TMich6811]

I understood it to mean between the last time they were heard playing and the first time Daniel was heard calling their names was roughly 20 minutes.

She says

“I’d say 10 minutes after I heard him, I come out of the trailer. I opened up the door, was standing here, Malyeha was standing right here with Meadow on her hip and I come out and I said what’s up. She said Jack and lily are missing. I said how long? She said about 20 minutes”

No she is def saying mom said 20 minutes

 

[Sarahlou]

Personally I'm very cautious about believing everything close family members say. A mother is (usually) going to support her child's story or not believe they are capable of harm.

 

[TMich6811]

Not if she drifted off to sleep like she said she did, then woke up to hearing Daniel calling for them.

Honestly, it tracks. I never really gave much credence to the "abducted" theory but it's making more sense now. Maybe not "abducted" abducted, but driven away by someone.

Okay so in this theory there are 2 options in my mind

1. Vehicle drives down driveway and gets kids into car. Grandmother says she would have heard the kids say come on etc so sure she would have heard them then and heard a car. Also the dog barked when the kids go outside so my gut says they would have barked for a vehicle. She didn’t hear any voices or conversation. If one was grabbed at end of driveway she probably would have heard the other

2. Vehicle is at end of road. More likely given the dog noise. But she didn’t hear them talk about leaving the yard. It’s possible she didn’t hear it but she’s pretty adamant she would have

 

[Ontario Mom]

She says

“I’d say 10 minutes after I heard him, I come out of the trailer. I opened up the door, was standing here, Malyeha was standing right here with Meadow on her hip and I come out and I said what’s up. She said Jack and lily are missing. I said how long? She said about 20 minutes”

No she is def saying mom said 20 minutes

Right, she'd (mom) said earlier they saw Lilly and heard Jack in the kitchen, and then "roughly" 20 minutes later didn't hear them. Likely the same time frame (ish) Daniel's mom also heard them outside. My guess is, that's when Daniel went outside and started calling their names.

 

[TMich6811]

Personally I'm very cautious about believing everything close family members say. A mother is (usually) going to support her child's story or not believe they are capable of harm.

I agree thank you, this is how I feel.

 

[Ontario Mom]

Okay so in this theory there are 2 options in my mind

1. Vehicle drives down driveway and gets kids into car. Grandmother says she would have heard the kids say come on etc so sure she would have heard them then and heard a car. Also the dog barked when the kids go outside so my gut says they would have barked for a vehicle. She didn’t hear any voices or conversation. If one was grabbed at end of driveway she probably would have heard the other

2. Vehicle is at end of road. More likely given the dog noise. But she didn’t hear them talk about leaving the yard. It’s possible she didn’t hear it but she’s pretty adamant she would have

Wandered into the woods: The time frame seems completely off for them to have just been heard right outside step-gran's window then suddenly gone.

Getting into a car: If she dozed off & a car pulled up she'd never hear it. I have no idea if her dog would have barked at a car. We had one once that only barked at cars arriving in the laneway that she wasn't familiar with. Friends and family's cars she completely ignored. If the kids knew the person in the car, there'd be no screaming or anything.

I'm not actually sold on any of this, but seeing the video, the distance from her trailer to the kid's house, etc. does give me a bit more perspective than I had before.

 

[Ontario Mom]

Personally I'm very cautious about believing everything close family members say. A mother is (usually) going to support her child's story or not believe they are capable of harm.

Of course, it's perfectly normal to defend your kid against unfounded gossip & rumor.

Yet to me, she sounds entirely believable.

 

[Sjöberg]

It was very useful to see the scene and I do feel that most or all of what she said is true. Of course, we have to keep in mind that it is possible she might be untruthful about hearing the kids in the morning, if she believes this the right thing to do for one reason or another, but I do think we can rule out "anyone living in the trailer" or "the dog" being responsible for the kids going missing (seems like no other people were present on that day). And I do by and large believe her recollection of the events that followed.

If we take her word for it, she heard the kids playing in the usual location, she fell aseleep for a while and was woken by the parents looking for the kids. This does, realistically, not give the parents time to kill and dispose of the two kids, all the while having a baby in tow. Additionally, if the initial search in the woods actually started relatively quickly (I think the description sounds like it really must have been at least less than an hour and possibly even as little as 15 minutes), then the kids being out of earshot or/and unable to respond if they wandered into the woods, seems less likely.
My initial theory was, that the kids were actually unsupervised for a few hours, and this would have allowed them to play in the yard, walk off and play in the woods, get lost, then walk to the wrong direction and eventually be out of earshot by the time they went searching.

If initally everything seemed possible, then when taking her account as truthful, pretty much nothing seems possible. Either the kids were lead away by a trusted adult (e.g loaded onto a car with someone else for whatever reason) or the kids were kidnapped in a way that was not heard from either of the households (I think bedroom windows were all facing away from the highway?). And both seem pretty unlikely. If we consider the bootprint on their land as actual and from that morning, then does that point towards the kids walking towards the highway at some point?

Honestly, while very informative, I am also more confused than ever. I was pretty solid on "either harmed by parents or lost in the woods" - and these both are super unlikely in the light of that video.

 

[su5ie]

I'm still stuck on the question of whether there's any evidence the kids actually made it home from New Glasgow on the 1st

I think this is where I'm at now with my theoretical scenario.

I've been thinking about the case from a behavioural and statistical analysis point of view . The following is my opinion only and done from the angle of an investigator

My opinion depends heavily on the children not being sighted by anyone else other than DM and MBM after they returned home from grocery shopping. Which is not known publicly at the moment. . And if they were not seen I'm taking the date of disappearance from when they were last seen in public on the 1st of May.which is what an investigator would do trying to establish a timeline .

I only analysed the known facts . So description of clothes , behaviour and action and inaction of parents , search and rescue, reward , major crimes unit taking the lead and what the RCMP are including in their statements and a speculation of what they may be omitting.

Reward , is not offered in cases of missing persons were no foulplay has been suspected

Major crimes unit . Does not get involved in missing persons cases unless criminality is the prime suspicion

search and rescue , biggest search in the history of the province. No sign of children wanderinginto the forest . One would expect to find evidenceof them havingbeen through there , lost toys , pieces of clothing etc

DM'S behaviour. Particularly in the early weeks , Seems cooperative and more willing to engage with investigators and the public and alleged by him participation in search .
May or may not be aware of what happened and may have been a participant in a cover up . I can see him imo in a role such as helping to conceal a crime and his reasoning being protecting his relationship with bio children. And his loyalty to a possible perpetrator. If his role was Co conspirator he may be the weakest link but at the moment he possibly feels he is in too deep and is afraid of losing custody of his children.


MBM'S behaviour, atypical for a mother of missing children. Allegedly Left search area on 3rd of may and Hasn't spoken on behalf of her children since . Left relationship . Does this raise red flags from the eyes of an investigator this certainly raises suspicion.
From behavioural analysis , the behaviour is typical of a guilty conscience. Which may simply be a blaming of oneself for bringing the children to live in the area .
Statistically speaking when a mother is a perpetrator, it is generally a mercy killing , a moment of rage ,or after an argument with a partner . Method ,suffocation or drowning. Leaves little forensic trace

Description of kids and clothing, full description of lillys clothing and backpack ( including a backpack may imply the need to create the wandering off story for LE ) may have been the favoured child or may have been killed first ,so a perpetrator has more time to take in what has happened,. Description of Jack's clothing, not as clear and more items added over days . Perpetrator may have killed him as he was a witness and it was done quickly and while perpetrator was in a panic .

My overall synopsis is the children were killed or handed off in a moment of rage and by the time RCMP were called the kids were hidden

This is all MOO and speculative

 

[FansBlowing]

So, if both parents are covering up abuse, then where did they take the bodies? Most likely taken by a vehicle somewhere further than the surrounding woods as those have been thoroughly searched. This is where cameras facing the roads and parking lots might offer some evidence.

 

[Tilly23]

The 8:48 call from her brother should be verifiable. This really helps to pin down the amount of time before the 911 call was made. She says after that, she fell asleep for a bit, woke to the dog barking and hearing the kids playing on the swings. So she must have heard the kids no earlier than about 9 am.

The first RCMP press release on May 2 said "Since just after 10 a.m. this morning, May 2, a search has been underway for two children..."

https://rcmp.ca/en/nova-scotia/news/2025/05/missing-children-help-rcmp-find-lilly-sullivan-and-jack-sullivan

We have heard that the search was started very quickly because searchers were already available nearby looking for a missing kayaker. Still, even at the fastest possible pace, they couldn't have started searching "just after 10 a.m." unless the 911 call was made before 10 a.m.

So, in MOO, this leaves a maximum window of 9 am to 10 am, and likely a fair bit smaller than that, between when the kids were heard by JM and when the 911 call was made.

MOO

 

[FansBlowing]

Hearing the kids playing on the swings could also just have been the sound of the swings blowing in the wind. Did she actually hear voices or the swings?

 

[Slebby]

The 8:48 call from her brother should be verifiable. This really helps to pin down the amount of time before the 911 call was made. She says after that, she fell asleep for a bit, woke to the dog barking and hearing the kids playing on the swings. So she must have heard the kids no earlier than about 9 am.

The first RCMP press release on May 2 said "Since just after 10 a.m. this morning, May 2, a search has been underway for two children..."

https://rcmp.ca/en/nova-scotia/news/2025/05/missing-children-help-rcmp-find-lilly-sullivan-and-jack-sullivan

We have heard that the search was started very quickly because searchers were already available nearby looking for a missing kayaker. Still, even at the fastest possible pace, they couldn't have started searching "just after 10 a.m." unless the 911 call was made before 10 a.m.

So, in MOO, this leaves a maximum window of 9 am to 10 am, and likely a fair bit smaller than that, between when the kids were heard by JM and when the 911 call was made.

MOO

I wonder if it’s possible, by “a search was underway just after 10 am” they meant the search initially started by DM and MBM, and not the official search by those trained searchers who were summoned by LE. I agree, that would have been well after 10 am.
IMO

 

[su5ie]

Wandered into the woods: The time frame seems completely off for them to have just been heard right outside step-gran's window then suddenly gone.

Getting into a car: If she dozed off & a car pulled up she'd never hear it. I have no idea if her dog would have barked at a car. We had one once that only barked at cars arriving in the laneway that she wasn't familiar with. Friends and family's cars she completely ignored. If the kids knew the person in the car, there'd be no screaming or anything.

I'm not actually sold on any of this, but seeing the video, the distance from her trailer to the kid's house, etc. does give me a bit more perspective than I had before.

Yes this is certainly a believable scenario. I don't see how the kids wouldn't be found by family members if the time between them being heard and the family out searching was 20/ 30 mins . DM and his mum would not have been cantering they would have been fast paced or running.

Did someone known to the children take them quietly prehaps with neither parent being aware .

Seeing the video and the area where they play in the wooded area at the side of the driveway, I can't see a child becoming bored enough to wander off . Plenty to occupy the children within the confines of the property.

DMs mum says she went out to feed the chickens at around 8 ,so obviously there was no suspicious activity or vehicle at that time but prehaps when she was on the phone at 8.48 a vehicle did pull up and beckoning to the children they ran out to a known person and got into a car .

 

[Serononin]

I would think just a simple eyeballing of the two (if they are different pieces of fabric) would suffice to depict if they are one and the same, and then further analysis. Thinking of what would that fabric contain, fibres, hair, dna, food, liquids, environmental contanminents, blood, soil, insects etc?? Guess the list is endless. Would a child's blanket contain the same elements as a child's bedroom drape? Did the fabric look so similar to the window covering that it was removed from window for forensics? Was the piece of fabric called a blanket given to SARS for dog scenting, or for matching another piece possibly found? Or was that piece of fabric just a one off random? If Lilly's blanket, how did a piece randomly land on Landsdowne Road away from home? Thrown out of bus? Fell off garbage truck? Carried there? Dragged by animal? Placed there?
I don't think there is anything to this piece of fabric, unless it matches that window covering, then it's highly suspicious. I find it very strange that window covering is missing in other photos.

I wonder if there's potential for forensic palynology to be useful here?

 

[su5ie]

OK after seeing the video and the updated timeline, I can't see the kids not being found if they did wander too far and get lost . I'm very confused now as to what has gone on and even more so confused as to why Maleyha is so silent.

Why would you leave so soon and breakup with a partner that has apparently done all in his power to find your children that morning.

Even in the total hypothetically scenario that Daniel found the kids in his searching before RCMP and searchers arrival and killed them there and then in anger for wandering off . He would not have had time to dispose of the bodies in an area outside of search zone .

I can see no other plausible situation other than a possible removal of the kids in a vehicle by someone known to them and when someone ( janie) at the heart of the investigation says with conviction that she believes the kids are alive , what are the public more likely to think .

I don't know whether this interview will dampen down the speculation on SM or add fuel to an already flaming fire of finger pointing at MBM having handed them over imo

 

[su5ie]

I wonder if there's potential for forensic palynology to be useful here?

I would imagine this would be used most definitely if remains were found . And I've raised the possibility of botanical forensic investigators being involved in the search