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

[Lalalacasbah]

I totally agree. I’ve always thought polygraphs would start with a bunch of baseline questions, then variations on questions related to the case in question.
Baseline - are you DM? Do you live in Pictou County?
Questions re case - did you harm L? Did you harm J? Did you kill L? Do you know where L is? Do you know where J is? Do you know who took J? Etc.

But what do I know? DM claimed the first polygraph question he was asked was “did you kill Jack and Lilly?”

IMO

Oops I made my post above while catching up before reading yours! I think that's how it works too. Random questions not related to the crime/events.

I am thinking the 4 questions are pointed/detailed ones about events/disappearance.

 

[LadyL]

BBM

MSN

“The mother told police that both children were possibly autistic and known to roam.”

Originally iirc MBM told the media the children weren’t allowed to go outside on their own and someone was always outside watching them (or words to that effect). So now we know why that might be. And ‘known to roam’ is probably the reason the RCMP initially believed the children wandered into the forest.
JMO

I was thinking maybe they've had instructions from CAS that they need to be outside with their children, especially given the trashy state of the yard, for safety reasons, and M was trying to cover her butt in that statement. JMO.

 

[LadyL]

Too many posts to quote…

Re garbage pickup - in the rural area in which I live, our trash is not picked up, we have to either haul it ourselves or hire a private company. In that remote, sparsely populated area where DM and MBM lived, I would be surprised if they had regular trash pickup.

in the video posted by dotr right above your post, DM shows the reporter their trash receptacles at the road - there would be no point in having them at the road so far away from the house, if they didn't have garbage pickup

 

[bluestsocks]

Oops I made my post above while catching up before reading yours! I think that's how it works too. Random questions not related to the crime/events.

I am thinking the 4 questions are pointed/detailed ones about events/disappearance.

The baseline questions wouldn’t be included because they aren’t considered material, generally speaking. It’s quite common for the actually relevant material questions to be limited to 2 to 5 short questions. I don’t believe in polygraphs, but because I’ve done a ton of research on them in forming my view that they aren’t reliable, IMO 4 relevant material questions would be fairly normal. So I agree with you!

Meanwhile this case is genuinely a head scratcher.

 

[Dotta]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Hexe]

No one has said a peep if Lilly was at all attached to this blanket. If she was, why was it put in the trash bag?

It was said clearly she did not want it anymore so DM used it to stop the draft. In the spring the mom took the blanket from under the door snd threw it in the trash.

 

[ScotsPaddy]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

So what are the results?.

 

[Ontario Mom]

So what are the results?.

According to the article:

"The first round of polygraph tests, which measures fluctuations in a person's nervous system to indicate if they are being truthful when answering a series of questions, took place on May 12, according to new documents obtained by CTV News. The results for both Brooks-Murray and the children's stepfather, Daniel Martell, indicated that the pair had been 'truthful,' the documents stated."

 

[MistyWaters]

So what are the results?.

July? That was last month. Just pointing out why DM isn’t a trusted source.

“In July, a piece of a pink blanket, determined to belong to Lily, was found by three family members in a tree less than a mile from their home.”

 

[Inthedetails]

I think how it works... They can ask a run of whimsical, basic type questions that are easy to be honest or lie about like - "do you currently live at this address?" or "do you live in Canada" to get a baseline.

snipped

What if the scenario goes like this:

Q: Is your name Sally Sue? (when it is a proven fact the person is Sally Sue)

A: Yes (but deception is detected)

Q: Are you 35 years old? (when it's a proven fact she is 35)

A: Yes (but deception is detected)

Would that be enough for all answers to then be "inconclusive" since the answers known to be true showed deception, perhaps through nervousness or stress??

I have no idea! Just wondering.

jmopinion

 

[sunshineray]

Why did it take so long to access this app's records? Did she delete it right after the disappearance of her children, before? If after, why on earth would someone delete anything from their phone knowing LE would want to look at?

"RCMP also accessed Brooks-Murray's TextPlus account, a phone app she used for Wi-Fi calling.
By the time police sought the records in early July, the court records said Brooks-Murray had "deleted the app because she doesn't need it anymore." Regardless, RCMP were able to access her account."

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/extensive-rcmp-scrutiny-of-missing-children-s-mother-stepfather-suggests-no-criminal-involvement-1.7615551

 

[Slebby]

Why did it take so long to access this app's records? Did she delete it right after the disappearance of her children, before? If after, why on earth would someone delete anything from their phone knowing LE would want to look at?

"RCMP also accessed Brooks-Murray's TextPlus account, a phone app she used for Wi-Fi calling.
By the time police sought the records in early July, the court records said Brooks-Murray had "deleted the app because she doesn't need it anymore." Regardless, RCMP were able to access her account."

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/extensive-rcmp-scrutiny-of-missing-children-s-mother-stepfather-suggests-no-criminal-involvement-1.7615551

I’m just guessing…but the cell coverage is terrible where they lived on Gairloch Rd. MBM used the app in order to be able to use their wifi to call/send texts. When she left DM and the home they shared, she moved to an area with good cell coverage and therefore didn’t need the call/text over wifi app anymore.
IMO

 

[sunshineray]

I’m just guessing…but the cell coverage is terrible where they lived on Gairloch Rd. MBM used the app in order to be able to use their wifi to call/send texts. When she left DM and the home they shared, she moved to an area with good cell coverage and therefore didn’t need the call/text over wifi app anymore.
IMO

True, that's probably why. Still, deleting anything from your phone before LE has viewed it is not a good thing. LE not looking at everything on the parent's phones right away, waiting two months, is also not a good thing. JMO

 

[FromGermany1]

According to police, she said the children were walking toward a Caucasian female of about 50-60 years old with a “loose curl” haircut, who was waiting next to the passenger side of an older model tan or gold sedan with the backdoor open.

bbm
Jamie and her brother, who she "didn't need for shopping" (with him and his car) that day?
Who was able to confirm her being in bed again this morning?
Who knows, which car her brother is driving?

It is only a thought and speculation. MOO

It would make a bit of sense, when Jamie feared to lose her bio grandchild, DM and MJM's toddler, because CPS was expected to come and possibly would take all 3 children. So the "problem kids" had to disappear (to a safe address), so that Jamie would preserve her own grandchild. Idk. Speculation.

 

[Slebby]

bbm
Jamie and her brother, who she "didn't need for shopping" (with him and his car) that day?
Who was able to confirm her being in bed again this morning?
Who knows, which car her brother is driving?

It is only a thought and speculation. MOO

It would make a bit of sense, when Jamie feared to lose her bio grandchild, DM and MJM's toddler, because CPS was expected to come and possibly would take all 3 children. So the "problem kids" had to disappear (to a safe address), so that Jamie would preserve her own grandchild. Idk. Speculation.

Are you suggesting it was JM who picked up the children in the gold car? I would think the witness would be able to identify JM from her interview with media.
But an interesting theory.
IMO

 

[paris_paris]

The missing cashmere sweaters may also be interpreted as presplaining. I’m feeling hopeful today but in recent days have wondered if those sweaters will be found with bodies and DM perhaps had to preempt conclusions tying the sweaters directly to his involvement.
Yet, today, I have to clarify MOO and not a strong opinion at that. But why are the sweaters missing?

I’ve read the links but I can’t find anything about the 2 missing sweaters. Can anyone help?

 

[teeby]

True, that's probably why. Still, deleting anything from your phone before LE has viewed it is not a good thing. LE not looking at everything on the parent's phones right away, waiting two months, is also not a good thing. JMO

Honestly, if it had been a couple weeks and LE hadn't asked for my phone, I wouldn't think to preserve things in case they came back for it later.

 

[Ontario Mom]

bbm
Jamie and her brother, who she "didn't need for shopping" (with him and his car) that day?
Who was able to confirm her being in bed again this morning?
Who knows, which car her brother is driving?

It is only a thought and speculation. MOO

It would make a bit of sense, when Jamie feared to lose her bio grandchild, DM and MJM's toddler, because CPS was expected to come and possibly would take all 3 children. So the "problem kids" had to disappear (to a safe address), so that Jamie would preserve her own grandchild. Idk. Speculation.

My guess is, you're referring to Janie Mackenzie, DM's mother?
If so, her hair doesn't fit the "loose curl" cut description given.
It's short and straight, as we've all seen in her interviews.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/lilly-jack-sullivan-missing-janie-mackenzie-1.7293141

 

[sunspun]

IMO, LE's main concern would be to find the children, and note so much about mud slinging or speculation.

I suspect it was holdback in the event they could let DM and/or MBM take the heat publicly while LE was pursuing other possibilities in the background. This would leave visual that the focus was on the parents, while they work on other possibilities behind the scenes. Even the fact that DM told us he passed the poly but LE didn't confirm that until now when news of a possible abductor is released, IMO seems to coincide with a bit of a prior disinformation campaign to aid an investigation. The witness who claims to have seen the children going towards a car ... IMO just because that info has just been released, I bet LE prolly had that info from the get-go and was placing more emphasis on DM's claim of an abduction than they were letting on to the public. Let an abductor think they weren't under suspicion.

All JMO

Wouldn't they have been able to issue an Amber Alert if they had a possibly suspicious vehicle description, or would it only apply if they have more specific vehicle known?

 

[sapphire blue]

Interesting, if I recall very early on LE was looking through video footage of the last day the kids were seen. IMO they were specifically looking for a particular vehicle then. I also seem to recall the bio fathers family was in town around then as well.

So the question then becomes who is the 50-60 yr old woman with a short curl cut and does she (or anyone she is related to or friends with) drive the vehicle that the witness saw the kids walking to.

It wouldn’t surprise me to learn that the short curl cut woman is related to bio dads family.