CANADA Canada - Jack, 4 & Lilly Sullivan, 6, Vulnerable, wandered from home 10am, Gairloch Rd, Landsdowne Station, Pictou County, NS, 2 May 2025 #7

[Lalalacasbah]

Hardly a Freudian slip, as he was quite emphatic about it. Later in the same interview he restated his belief with respect to the 2 acres where he resided so that’s what I think he was referring to. But he was right on with what he said about his every word and gesture getting analyzed.

I have always found him to sound seemingly honest, almost earnest and candid too however, I have been duped before so I am not closing that door yet.

A big part of me doesn't suspect him but then there's some things where I think it's hinky. It's not even him I'd suspect first but maybe someone he knows or he's close to as a reason he might lie, defer or state things with such conviction.

They say (not sure who, psychologists/criminologists?) there is usually an element of truth when people tell lies. I think maybe it makes it easier for them to believe it themselves.

I am hoping neither MBM or DM are involved. If foul play I still think it's through association, relation, local to the area, had an interaction with the family, etc. MOO JMO

 

[Lalalacasbah]

But even if he knows he didn't do anything wrong, he can't be certain the dogs will find nothing. We've heard over and over how difficult the terrain is to search, so there's no way he looked in every nook and cranny and can be 100% certain that the children are not in the search areas.

If his theory is still that the kids got out and wandered into the woods and got lost, that's even more reason for him not to be so certain the dogs will find nothing.

Am I missing something?

Sorry if that wasn't clear, my initial thought was IF he was involved for him to say with such conviction they won't be found - I was thinking because he took them somewhere far away far from the search areas.

They wouldn't find them because they are nowhere near as one might put them as far away from the property as possible in the amount of time that allowed. JMO MOO

 

[LadyL]

Thank you for the further explanation. I agree that the question should have been included.

On the other hand, I am having a hard time coming up with a question that would have elicited such an adamant statement that the dogs will find nothing.

And as I said before, if he did nothing wrong there's still no way he can be 100% sure that the kids' remains aren't out there somewhere, be it by someone who did do something wrong or by the kids wandering off and succumbing.

I mean if he's 100% sure they're not on his property, then he must 100% think they were abducted. Which is what he said in the beginning. But then why is he happy about the cadaver dogs being brought in? if they're not going to find anything? unless he thinks they could be on a neighbour's property?

I'm confused.

 

[Laura456]

I mean if he's 100% sure they're not on his property, then he must 100% think they were abducted. Which is what he said in the beginning. But then why is he happy about the cadaver dogs being brought in? if they're not going to find anything? unless he thinks they could be on a neighbour's property?

I'm confused.

Maybe because it's been taken seriously?

 

[Serononin]

To be fair, I can understand him being confident that the children won't be found on the property given how thoroughly the police searched it early on. I do still feel that he comes across as more interested in proclaiming his own innocence than in actually finding out what happened to the children, but at the same time I can understand why he'd be feeling defensive what with all the suspicion.

The more time passes without any apparent evidence of foul play being found, the more I'm inclined to believe that they really did just wander off, although the more recent developments in the Émile Soleil case do stop me from thinking that wandering is the *only* possibility at this point.

I can only hope that it won't be long now before we hear that they've been found