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

[su5ie]

Actually, I do believe they could have been missed. For sure. Kids are small. Kids hid themselves. Canadian wilderness is BIG. Kids that are not found during initial searches are often either out of the search area (we underestimate them) or simply missed. All it takes is one searcher doing one mistake. And IMO while everything else is less likely to happen to two siblings together (murder, accidental death, abduction etc), the one thing that seems more likely is running away (for purpose or accidentally during play). It is not my main theory for timeline reasons, however, I am unable to rule that out. Especially considering the bootprint: SOME little kid clearly was on the pipeline trail. If it wasn't Lilly and Jack, who was it? It's not like it's a popular place to spend time with family.

Yes, it really is super rare. I can recall one case of young twins, where we suspected mental ilness of the mother (and she indeed is in a psychiatric hospital soon after). It is similar in the sense that the kids were home with an illness, they roled CoD suffocation, but frankly, I think that case had a very different vibe. Also, paramedics were called to the kids, the kids were never missing. I am not saying L&J were not killed by immediate family, it remains one of my top theories, but for now, I have seen no hints about neither the method nor the motive nor the culprit.

A vehicle accident does seem possible for seriously hurting two kids at once, especially kids of a similar age who play together. I find it hard to believe there would be no evidence of that, but if there was relatively little blood and the bodies were moved quickly, then maybe. But I feel the injuries of both kids would have to be pretty obvius (=blood) for the ambulance to not even be called by either parent.

I must say, this really is one of the cases where everything seems kind-of-possible and nothing at all seems likely.

Excellent post and very logically thought out

 

[su5ie]

I do think it's strange that we haven't heard of mbm searching from any adult present whom had given an interview to msm .

It's been reported that MBM's family were present on the second day anyway as she left the area on the 3rd of may and its been reported that belynda arrived that morning too as she has expressed that she was surprised mbm left the area and explained that she helped with the search herself . Did MBM's family also help in the search or did they just congregate and then the argument ensued ? Because if not why ?

If mbm and her children were subjected to DV , I don't blame her leaving with her own family for comfort but what I find hard is the majority of parents of missing children will be present at the search site for as long as Sars and LE are around and searching for HER children , you could not get a safer environment if you are a victim of DV .

I mentioned before I don't like shouldha, wouldha, couldha but surely this behaviour of mbm is an outlier in the realms of missing children . If anyone has examples of innocent parents doing the same I would love to hear them because I cannot think of any and on top of that not to even to give the children the power of your voice . And her family members too why the silence.

It's like on day 2 of the search they just shrugged the shoulders and said ah well that's it there gone never to be found !! It's just astonishing imo .

By day 2 there was every chance them children could have been found alive and want their mum immediately not waiting with strangers and a man who potentially hurt them by inflicting black eyes . What was the rush . Even if janie told them to bleep off . Would you not just get off her property and stand with the officers at the search Station

It's the most puzzling part of the disappearance for me and I'm intrigued as to why a man ( DM) and woman ( janie ) whom have no blood relation to lilly and jack and a grandmother ( BG) that hadn't seen the kids in two years are the only ones that seem to care .

Are they on drugs or something or can they just let go easily ??? I'm stumped and it's highly unusual. Does it seem cold hearted or am I being too harsh and prehaps she is having a mental breakdown and is heavily sedated and hospitalised in a mental institution or rehab ????

 

[Lalalacasbah]

Actually, I do believe they could have been missed. For sure. Kids are small. Kids hid themselves. Canadian wilderness is BIG. Kids that are not found during initial searches are often either out of the search area (we underestimate them) or simply missed. All it takes is one searcher doing one mistake. And IMO while everything else is less likely to happen to two siblings together (murder, accidental death, abduction etc), the one thing that seems more likely is running away (for purpose or accidentally during play). It is not my main theory for timeline reasons, however, I am unable to rule that out. Especially considering the bootprint: SOME little kid clearly was on the pipeline trail. If it wasn't Lilly and Jack, who was it? It's not like it's a popular place to spend time with family.

Yes, it really is super rare. I can recall one case of young twins, where we suspected mental ilness of the mother (and she indeed is in a psychiatric hospital soon after). It is similar in the sense that the kids were home with an illness, they roled CoD suffocation, but frankly, I think that case had a very different vibe. Also, paramedics were called to the kids, the kids were never missing. I am not saying L&J were not killed by immediate family, it remains one of my top theories, but for now, I have seen no hints about neither the method nor the motive nor the culprit.

A vehicle accident does seem possible for seriously hurting two kids at once, especially kids of a similar age who play together. I find it hard to believe there would be no evidence of that, but if there was relatively little blood and the bodies were moved quickly, then maybe. But I feel the injuries of both kids would have to be pretty obvius (=blood) for the ambulance to not even be called by either parent.

I must say, this really is one of the cases where everything seems kind-of-possible and nothing at all seems likely.

I would prefer they were lost in the woods to the other scenarios although all scenarios are sad at this point.

If they went into the woods... I'm trying to think like a kid...if they got cold at night they might think to cover themselves with branches maybe as a makeshift blanket?

Or snuggle up at/in the base of a tree/hollow to maybe be their "fort" or "house" of some kind. Not sure how long hyperthermia would take if they fell asleep and didn't wake up?

I could see them not being found easily if I were to think like a kid and what I may do for shelter. I would rather this outcome as an accident than something sinister MOO

 

[BlaiseFinlay]

Regarding the G+M article, I think the presentation of the story reflects their suspicions after 3 months of investigation, but I don’t think we have any reason to think it’s tabloid-level reporting (and that’s not my understanding of the G+M’s journalistic standards).

Obviously this is just my opinion (guess), but I would expect that the authors would have fact-checked the facts presented in the story, like the late filed tax return and the loss of benefits. I assume by requesting copies of the correspondence from their source. They also verified the CPS claims by a FOIA request and the tip by checking with the RCMP.

But much of it is indeed hearsay — and it is presented as such, often along with reasons to doubt it. So for example the statement that DM told his friends he was getting into investing isn’t just a rumor if they spoke to one of those friends. It’s not something they read on social media and repeated — I certainly haven’t come across that rumor online. And they present the tip about the car noise as just that, a tip — the only source is the neighbor.

And much of the article is direct quotes from the family. So the reader can come to their own conclusions about whether to believe the person being quoted.

The omission I noted was it didn’t seem to include DM’s mother’s version of events that morning, unless I missed it in the article. She had done that whole interview with the news. Was any of that referenced in the article? If that was omitted, my conclusion would be that the authors don’t consider it to be credible.

The fact I keep going back to is the mother leaving the briefing with police for not feeling well, going into the ambulance, then leaving DM and cutting off contact. That to me is an expression of genuine emotion and grief — and blame. No cameras were on her at that time. That said, the only firm conclusion I come to from that (MOO) is that the mother is not more culpable than DM with respect to their disappearance (except in the broad sense of course that she was the only one legally responsible for them). But whether she knows where they are, I’m not convinced one way or the other. The mother’s relative innocence is about the only thing I’m convinced of.

I also find it odd that cadaver dogs were not used. Not sure if that’s just a matter of limited resources, or if it’s indicative of something that’s known by the RCMP. But if they’re currently spinning their wheels (not saying they are), that would be a logical step they could take I would think.

 

[LadyL]

Something else that has always bothered me is the fact it’s 2 kids missing, not just one. Why?

one kid was the victim, second kid was the witness (who became a victim) - baby was too young to be a potential witness so did not become a victim

JMO

 

[TMich6811]

one kid was the victim, second kid was the witness (who became a victim)

 

[LadyL]

Also my thoughts. Although I believe, it has something to do with the children's disappearance. But what exactly??
ETA: Did someone unknown move out of the trailer by night?? Someone, who's presence wouldn't have been accepted by CPS? A move would be an explanation for several trips with a "5-speed car" (or any car).

yep I thought in the beginning we were told there was another person living in the grandma's trailer - maybe just a false rumour or MSM got it wrong

 

[LadyL]

I must say, this really is one of the cases where everything seems kind-of-possible and nothing at all seems likely.

exactly what I was just thinking

 

[MistyWaters]

yep I thought in the beginning we were told there was another person living in the grandma's trailer - maybe just a false rumour or MSM got it wrong

I recall it was assumed DM’s brother lived at the property but I don’t recall the reason why. But we’ve since learned he lived elsewhere, on Lansdowne Road iirc.

 

[Slebby]

Regarding the G+M article, I think the presentation of the story reflects their suspicions after 3 months of investigation, but I don’t think we have any reason to think it’s tabloid-level reporting (and that’s not my understanding of the G+M’s journalistic standards).

Obviously this is just my opinion (guess), but I would expect that the authors would have fact-checked the facts presented in the story, like the late filed tax return and the loss of benefits. I assume by requesting copies of the correspondence from their source. They also verified the CPS claims by a FOIA request and the tip by checking with the RCMP.

But much of it is indeed hearsay — and it is presented as such, often along with reasons to doubt it. So for example the statement that DM told his friends he was getting into investing isn’t just a rumor if they spoke to one of those friends. It’s not something they read on social media and repeated — I certainly haven’t come across that rumor online. And they present the tip about the car noise as just that, a tip — the only source is the neighbor.

And much of the article is direct quotes from the family. So the reader can come to their own conclusions about whether to believe the person being quoted.

The omission I noted was it didn’t seem to include DM’s mother’s version of events that morning, unless I missed it in the article. She had done that whole interview with the news. Was any of that referenced in the article? If that was omitted, my conclusion would be that the authors don’t consider it to be credible.

The fact I keep going back to is the mother leaving the briefing with police for not feeling well, going into the ambulance, then leaving DM and cutting off contact. That to me is an expression of genuine emotion and grief — and blame. No cameras were on her at that time. That said, the only firm conclusion I come to from that (MOO) is that the mother is not more culpable than DM with respect to their disappearance (except in the broad sense of course that she was the only one legally responsible for them). But whether she knows where they are, I’m not convinced one way or the other. The mother’s relative innocence is about the only thing I’m convinced of.

I also find it odd that cadaver dogs were not used. Not sure if that’s just a matter of limited resources, or if it’s indicative of something that’s known by the RCMP. But if they’re currently spinning their wheels (not saying they are), that would be a logical step they could take I would think.

I’m so glad you brought up the Globe and Mail. I am a subscriber to the G and M, and I totally agree with you about their standards for journalism. Here are the bios for the 2 reporters:

Greg Mercer

Greg Mercer is a member of The Globe and Mail's investigative team.

www.theglobeandmail.com

Lindsay Jones

Lindsay Jones is a reporter for The Globe and Mail's Atlantic bureau.

www.theglobeandmail.com

The first article appeared digitally on a Friday, but was the cover story for the print and digital edition on the Saturday August 9th. The G and M and indeed most newspapers generally include more in depth coverage, more human interest stories, etc in their Saturday edition. From my perspective, these reporters presented the human interest side of the story, not the basic facts as printed, say, in coverage of LE press conferences on the case. I was personally glad for their coverage.
Re MBM leaving the home and indeed leaving her partner DM the day after the disappearance of the kids, I too find it odd she left so suddenly. I’m torn between believing she has guilty knowledge of something terrible that happened or, the preferable option, that she has in some well meaning but misguided way, saved the children from a bad situation by having them whisked away in the night. Oh, how I hope this is what happened! The neighbour’s report of a 5 speed coming and going in the night could be evidence of this happening.

Re cadaver dogs - my understanding of these dogs is they’re not available everywhere in Canada. I believe LE relies heavily on the goodwill of non-profit search groups to fulfil this need, and that there is not a slate of well-trained cadaver dogs in the RCMP roster. An old article I found suggested there were about 14 such dogs in Canada 6 or 7 years ago, iirc.

I also wonder if the size of the search area and the danger of the terrain is a barrier.

All imho

 

[iveyguy]

yep I thought in the beginning we were told there was another person living in the grandma's trailer - maybe just a false rumour or MSM got it wrong

In fact, nobody said anything about DM's mother or her residence until Day 4 (Monday, May 5th). That's when we first learned about her, the RV, and the fact that she had kicked MBM's family off the property on Day 2. By this point, DM & MBM had spoken to the media multiple times (mostly DM) about the circumstances of the children's disappearance, and yet neither of them had ever mentioned this other adult or this other dwelling that was on their property. IMO, this is a very strange omission, given how obvious this would have been as a starting point for their search.

 

[MistyWaters]

In fact, nobody said anything about DM's mother or her residence until Day 4 (Monday, May 5th). That's when we first learned about her, the RV, and the fact that she had kicked MBM's family off the property on Day 2. By this point, DM & MBM had spoken to the media multiple times (mostly DM) about the circumstances of the children's disappearance, and yet neither of them had ever mentioned this other adult or this other dwelling that was on their property. IMO, this is a very strange omission, given how obvious this would have been as a starting point for their search.

That first morning the children were missing the alerts were put out for only one reason, hoping the public might know of information leading to their whereabouts. An exact timeline and interactions with others leading up to the disappearance would be a critical information for the RCMP’s investigation, realizing of course their collecting of that is not dependent on media reporting.

In the beginning DM may well have chosen to leave his mother out of it when speaking to the media, her having no direct involvement. Then usually as time passes the media begins to seek out new and different reporting approaches to retain and/or increase their readership > enter the grandmothers.

This case isn’t unusual at all IMO, small details are released gradually and most often really important details are not revealed until a trial occurs. Sometimes what we learn during an investigation doesn’t prove to be critical information in solving the case in the slightest.

In the US I notice that police release a lot more details to the public. In Canada not so, our legal system is different and cases can be lost when evidence is made public. With this case it’s as if the media would like to give the impression they are fulfilling that informing role, which isn’t possible as they are not inside the investigation and they have no legal authority to investigate. But they’re rewarded with clicks none the less and provide worthwhile informative value, lacking other options.
JMO

 

[Soulmagent]

yep I thought in the beginning we were told there was another person living in the grandma's trailer - maybe just a false rumour or MSM got it wrong

The first three pages of any given thread ,will spin you aright round, Then we get our diggers out.. and shuck ,
We cannot hang around MaryB. She is so crazy.

 

[Judy Sleuth]

I recall it was assumed DM’s brother lived at the property but I don’t recall the reason why. But we’ve since learned he lived elsewhere, on Lansdowne Road iirc.

Early MSM reports had an awkward sentence by the reporter that could be (and often was) misread as DM brother and DM mom both living in the camper. That's the only "source" I know of this incorrect claim that the brother also lived at the same property as everyone else.

 

[Soulmagent]

Early MSM reports had an awkward sentence by the reporter that could be (and often was) misread as DM brother and DM mom both living in the camper. That's the only "source" I know of this incorrect claim that the brother also lived at the same property as everyone else.

no, no ..wha...
the moible meth lab parked on the right of the big 5 ? you lying, I hope.

 

[Lalalacasbah]

Early MSM reports had an awkward sentence by the reporter that could be (and often was) misread as DM brother and DM mom both living in the camper. That's the only "source" I know of this incorrect claim that the brother also lived at the same property as everyone else.

Maybe not same property but wasn't it down the road or on the same road? I will have to dig to find where I read that.

 

[MistyWaters]

I recall it was assumed DM’s brother lived at the property but I don’t recall the reason why. But we’ve since learned he lived elsewhere, on Lansdowne Road iirc.

My mistake. It’s DM’s uncle, not the children’s uncle who lives off Landsdowne Road. So I have no idea where his brother lives, aside from recalling umpteen reminders not to sleuth relatives.

 

[Lalalacasbah]

My mistake. It’s DM’s uncle, not the children’s uncle who lives off Landsdowne Road. So I have no idea where his brother lives, aside from recalling umpteen reminders not to sleuth relatives. View attachment 609978

So sounds like Janie's brother possibly...the one who texted her that morning asking if he wanted her to swing by and pick her up but she declined she didn't need anything from town (as was going back to bed).

I wonder if it's one or a few uncles that live close by?

 

[steff13]

I just read all of these threads yesterday so I might have missed something but have they named the stepfather/mother's boyfriend as a person of interest?

 

[Jo in Calif]

I just read all of these threads yesterday so I might have missed something but have they named the stepfather/mother's boyfriend as a person of interest?

No.