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

[su5ie]

IMO, there could have been vehicle activity.

We don't know if the video footage LE reviewed was within range of the perimeter of the 2 acre Martell property, or if it had audio or was continuous or only came on and recorded within a certain range like a trail or game cam.

IMO, based on what some of the tips have been and what is known as facts IIRC, if there was vehicle activity on the Martell property in the wee hours:

-- In the 8 or so hours before Lilly and Jack's mother called 911 to report them missing from home & maybe having wandered into the woods around 10 am

-- And MBM & DM told LE they were sleeping in that morning with their youngest until they realized "Lilly and Jack had gone quiet" after them hearing them up & about (paraphrasing here, quotes are linked upthread)

-- After their mother messaged their school earlier around 630am they wouldn't be in attendance that day...

-- And now (see MSM links posted recently upthread) both their mother MBM and "stepfather" DM are both saying / are quoted as saying they no longer think they wandered off & someone somewhere must know something...

Then, IMO, it's possible there was vehicle activity that night which could have been pertinent to Lilly and Jack's disappearance no one in their household heard or were aware of at the time.

Which is, understandable, IMO, when IIRC:

Their family got home late (10pmish) from a day off from school for their older kids after having done laundry and gone shopping & time for bed for their kids.... Meadow at 18 months, with Lilly and Jack at 6 and 4 years, and them having gone to bed in the clothes they were wearing, and Lilly with her backpack & Jack in pullups...

IMO, they all must have been very tired that night.

And if their parents were very tired and they were too that night, perhaps it was a bit of a blurr in terms of when everyone went to sleep and who woke up when and what they did.

So hopeful these young children, Lilly and Jack, will be found soon! Holding them and their loved ones in my heart

JMO

Just to prevent a mix up going forward, Wednesday was the day they got in late from laundry etc Thursday the family spent the evening at home . Thursday evening is the apparent time janie was raking for a pool and DM was repairing a fence [ this is quoted in thread #1 or #2 ] which is why I don't understand how the kids weren't put in their pj's before bed and had slept in clothing from that day .

Hypothetically speaking if an investigator takes a timeline from a person last seen and not heard . And incorporates that information from independent witnesses and what that person was independently viewed as wearing etc . Thursday at around 2.48 pm is when the timeline begins. After that timestamp we have only 4 family witnesses to state they seen or heard the children.

Cyndy Murray, mbms mum states she had a video call with the kids Thursday at around 4.20 pm the exact time is in documents if anyone wants to go back and verify timestamp . Can anyone remember if cyndys phone data was analysised for the purpose of verification of this video call

Mbm states she put them to bed initially at 9pm but then rectified to 10pm in a later police interview. She states she heard the kids on Friday morning, she does not mention seeing them but does say Daniel was sleeping

DM states he turned on a light at around midnight to check on the sleeping children , he claims he seen lilly enter / pop her head into the bedroom a couple of times that friday morning and he claims to have heard jack in the kitchen , one thing of note is midnight is also the time a witness states they seen lights from an assumed vehicle through the treetops at around midnight / 1am . Could it be a bedroom light being turned on and off quickly ? Just something to take into consideration when deciding if the witness is giving their opinion of what they saw . Another consideration is DM states MBM was sleeping and MBM states DM was sleeping that Friday morning.

Janie mckenzie, from recall she states she heard the children after her call with her brother Ron at 8.48am Friday morning. As far as I recall she doesn't say she seen the kids Thursday evening.

So I ask anyone with legal experience or knowledge of the court system in Canada, how much weight is afforded witness testimony from family members of missing children taken from accounts within the 24 hours of that child [ ren ] disappearing . Do LE take it as fact until proven otherwise or is it viewed loosely and must be ascertained by call logs , location information from google etc before it's taken as fact .?

 

[MistyWaters]

Just to prevent a mix up going forward, Wednesday was the day they got in late from laundry etc Thursday the family spent the evening at home . Thursday evening is the apparent time janie was raking for a pool and DM was repairing a fence [ this is quoted in thread #1 or #2 ] which is why I don't understand how the kids weren't put in their pj's before bed and had slept in clothing from that day .

Hypothetically speaking if an investigator takes a timeline from a person last seen and not heard . And incorporates that information from independent witnesses and what that person was independently viewed as wearing etc . Thursday at around 2.48 pm is when the timeline begins. After that timestamp we have only 4 family witnesses to state they seen or heard the children.

Cyndy Murray, mbms mum states she had a video call with the kids Thursday at around 4.20 pm the exact time is in documents if anyone wants to go back and verify timestamp . Can anyone remember if cyndys phone data was analysised for the purpose of verification of this video call

Mbm states she put them to bed initially at 9pm but then rectified to 10pm in a later police interview. She states she heard the kids on Friday morning, she does not mention seeing them but does say Daniel was sleeping

DM states he turned on a light at around midnight to check on the sleeping children , he claims he seen lilly enter / pop her head into the bedroom a couple of times that friday morning and he claims to have heard jack in the kitchen , one thing of note is midnight is also the time a witness states they seen lights from an assumed vehicle through the treetops at around midnight / 1am . Could it be a bedroom light being turned on and off quickly ? Just something to take into consideration when deciding if the witness is giving their opinion of what they saw . Another consideration is DM states MBM was sleeping and MBM states DM was sleeping that Friday morning.

Janie mckenzie, from recall she states she heard the children after her call with her brother Ron at 8.48am Friday morning. As far as I recall she doesn't say she seen the kids Thursday evening.

So I ask anyone with legal experience or knowledge of the court system in Canada, how much weight is afforded witness testimony from family members of missing children taken from accounts within the 24 hours of that child [ ren ] disappearing . Do LE take it as fact until proven otherwise or is it viewed loosely and must be ascertained by call logs , location information from google etc before it's taken as fact .?

Regardless of country, I doubt statements are ever presumed to be factual. As with any investigation those closest to the victim or missing persons are investigated first. If a statement can’t be proven, lack of validation isn’t evidence that it’s false. Lack of proof would never be sufficient grounds on which to lay charges since that flys against Canada’s fundamental principle that everyone is considered innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

The RCMP have said they have no evidence of criminality but other than that, we know next to nothing regarding the direction of the investigation.
JMO

 

[Serononin]

These are situations from my experience in child protective service during my social work years:

1) parent gives children each a spoonful of benadryl to put nonsleepy children to sleep but oops, the dose was way too big for the smaller children. In one case, there was a total of SIX children.

2) parent gives children small dose of benadryl to make children sleepy, short time later & under drug-induced extremely impatient jumpiness, gave another dose because 1st dose just wasn't working fast enough to suit. Oops. Overdose.

3) parent gives children benadryl to put children to sleep then under heavy alcohol and drug influence, FORGETS they already dosed and does it again. Oops. Overdose.

4) one parent gives kids benadryl, 2nd parent also doses, not knowing 1st parent had already administered. Oops. Overdose.

5) the parent who is not the one who ordinarily administers benadryl doses the children and mistakes larger tablespoon for smaller teaspoon, thereby giving a triple dose accidentally. Oops. Overdose.

There's more but these are just the *accidental* overdose scenarios, or claimed to be accidental. I don't even want to recall the intentional murders. There are SO many ways to murder and disappear children. We see it ALL the time with adults, especially partners and ex partners and it's way WAY easier to dispose of tiny lightweight children bodies.

And yes yes to the accidentally hitting kids with cars.

Both the drug and the car accident scenarios would lead the average person to seek immediate hair-on-fire panicked emergency aid though.

There are definitely reasons why a person who innocently and mistakenly overdosed a kid or hit them with a car might NOT seek aid though. And that sometimes leads to an even larger situation that sets off investigations that have octopus arms leading in many different directions.

I'm beginning to understand why British benadryl is a completely different drug to the American variety

 

[Megnut]

Just to prevent a mix up going forward, Wednesday was the day they got in late from laundry etc Thursday the family spent the evening at home . Thursday evening is the apparent time janie was raking for a pool and DM was repairing a fence [ this is quoted in thread #1 or #2 ] which is why I don't understand how the kids weren't put in their pj's before bed and had slept in clothing from that day .

Hypothetically speaking if an investigator takes a timeline from a person last seen and not heard . And incorporates that information from independent witnesses and what that person was independently viewed as wearing etc . Thursday at around 2.48 pm is when the timeline begins. After that timestamp we have only 4 family witnesses to state they seen or heard the children.

Cyndy Murray, mbms mum states she had a video call with the kids Thursday at around 4.20 pm the exact time is in documents if anyone wants to go back and verify timestamp . Can anyone remember if cyndys phone data was analysised for the purpose of verification of this video call

Mbm states she put them to bed initially at 9pm but then rectified to 10pm in a later police interview. She states she heard the kids on Friday morning, she does not mention seeing them but does say Daniel was sleeping

DM states he turned on a light at around midnight to check on the sleeping children , he claims he seen lilly enter / pop her head into the bedroom a couple of times that friday morning and he claims to have heard jack in the kitchen , one thing of note is midnight is also the time a witness states they seen lights from an assumed vehicle through the treetops at around midnight / 1am . Could it be a bedroom light being turned on and off quickly ? Just something to take into consideration when deciding if the witness is giving their opinion of what they saw . Another consideration is DM states MBM was sleeping and MBM states DM was sleeping that Friday morning.

Janie mckenzie, from recall she states she heard the children after her call with her brother Ron at 8.48am Friday morning. As far as I recall she doesn't say she seen the kids Thursday evening.

So I ask anyone with legal experience or knowledge of the court system in Canada, how much weight is afforded witness testimony from family members of missing children taken from accounts within the 24 hours of that child [ ren ] disappearing . Do LE take it as fact until proven otherwise or is it viewed loosely and must be ascertained by call logs , location information from google etc before it's taken as fact .?

Rbbm

Just something that reminded of this:

Obviously we are following this story before it reaches any kind of resolution, whatever that may be. And we're trying to create timelines, not just of the original event, whatever it is, but also LE's investigation as bits and pieces come to us.

This is entirely my speculation and not intended to convict anyone, just an exercise in how I have personally seen these things unfold in other cases.

Let's say that most of the known "facts" of this story are generally true.

Neighbors heard a vehicle, attributed it to Daniel's car.

LE investigated all available video footage and couldn't not corroborate that. So...

Either there was no vehicle activity

Or there was vehicle activity, there just couldn't corroborate it.

Why? Maybe they're was video that was unavailable to them. Written over, glitched, unsaved, angled poorly.

(In another trial, smoke from a fireplace was a smoking gun of sorts, implicating a co-conspiratist to murder. Video fun a nearby home was recovered and the only reason it was recorded was because the homeowners dog tripped the motion detector.)

We don't knew what kind of security cameras the neighbors had. Motion detection, sound detection, intermittent video, streaming video, etc.

The neighbor who also apparently saw headlights reflecting above the trees, was that a personal sighting or viewed on video? Even if LE saw it on video, I would think they still couldn't confirm it as vehicle-produced (but might have every reason not to broadcast their observation).

Now let's say, armed with that evidence (unsubstantiated witness testimony), they interview Daniel.

Again speculation:

LE: did you go anywhere overnight?
Daniel: no
LE: are you sure?
Daniel: yes? I'm sure.
LE: what if we told you we have witnesses who heard your vehicle, in fact, back and forth several times?
Daniel: that didn't happen. I didn't go anywhere. My car isn't even drivable, and the other car isn't noisy.
LE: what if I told you that we have a witness who saw headlights coming from your direction?
Daniel: not possible. I didn't go anywhere. I did check on the kids around midnight, it turned the light on to see them, maybe that's what your witness saw. It sure wasn't me, driving.

IMO an interview like that might explain some of the details, "facts", answers we've been hearing about.

JMO

 

[Slebby]

I am believing the 2 witnesses. DM's car and sound is known to them for a time (how many months/years I don't know), and they at least didn't say, DM had been the driver of this car. They heard the sound and saw the light - finito. One of them is a (hobby?) car mechanic; why should he be mistaken? This type of man is expert, I would say. MOO

I believe the witnesses believe they saw/heard what they reported. It’s possible they were mistaken about which night it was, though I am less inclined that way given there are 2 who report the same date.

The alternative is that 2 people made it up. I don’t think it was made up. A made up story would be a better story - they heard a car, but also “I heard a scream at 6 am” or “I heard loud arguing” or even “I heard a voice and it was definitely___” or “I heard children crying”. The 2 reporting witnesses also are not reporting the same story - one heard a car once, the other heard the car several times thru the night.

I feel the same re the sighting of the woman in the gold car with 2 kids - this witness reported what they saw that day to the best of their recollection.

A witness can’t help it if what they report is unhelpful or unprovable. Their responsibility is to report what they saw, which they did.

IMHO

 

[su5ie]

Regardless of country, I doubt statements are ever presumed to be factual. As with any investigation those closest to the victim or missing persons are investigated first. If a statement can’t be proven, lack of validation isn’t evidence that it’s false. Lack of proof would never be sufficient grounds on which to lay charges since that flys against Canada’s fundamental principle that everyone is considered innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

The RCMP have said they have no evidence of criminality but other than that, we know next to nothing regarding the direction of the investigation.
JMO

I was only wondering what weight is afforded family as sight witness in a missing childs investigation. Is it taken as fact or do LE look for other evidence to back up the claim of seeing them . I'm not asking is it a verification of innocence as this is a given until proven otherwise . I'm not looking to see if a poi is possible ,I'm looking to see how factual we can take the timeline given by witnesses. Thanks for your answer though ,it's my fault for not clarifying what I was seeking to do

 

[Megnut]

I was only wondering what weight is afforded family as sight witness in a missing childs investigation. Is it taken as fact or do LE look for other evidence to back up the claim of seeing them . I'm not asking is it a verification of innocence as this is a given until proven otherwise . I'm not looking to see if a poi is possible ,I'm looking to see how factual we can take the timeline given by witnesses. Thanks for your answer though ,it's my fault for not clarifying what I was seeking to do

Always a work in progess and situation, specific.

911 call that baby fell overboard, LE isn't going to spend hours interviewing family. They're jumping in.

Interviewing family, when it happens, behind with getting details to clarify the situation. Who was where, said/did what.

LE has spidey sense. If those details don't add up, LE may become more direct in their approach. The more time elapsed, the more opportunity to gather additional information, with or without a family's assistance.

Oftentimes IME when those families talk to the media, they will share what they told LE but we aren't always privy to the questions that evoked those answers. Context can be critical. If we had the questions, we could better assess the answers.

LE doesn't usually ask just once either. So we may get multiple answers but which surfaced from very different interviews.

Like puzzle pieces that may or may not be important, especially when we don't yet know what the picture is supposed to be or which boxes the pieces came from.

JMO

 

[MistyWaters]

I was only wondering what weight is afforded family as sight witness in a missing childs investigation. Is it taken as fact or do LE look for other evidence to back up the claim of seeing them . I'm not asking is it a verification of innocence as this is a given until proven otherwise . I'm not looking to see if a poi is possible ,I'm looking to see how factual we can take the timeline given by witnesses. Thanks for your answer though ,it's my fault for not clarifying what I was seeking to do

Okay to answer your question I don’t think using media reports (not taken under oath) is a reliable way of establishing an accurate timeline because we have no way of knowing what’s factual or what’s not. Neither has the RCMP released what they believe to be the timeline. IIRC information relating to the timeline was redacted from the released documents indicating it’s being held back, for unknown reasons.

 

[FromGermany1]

+

No mention of mom being at the vigil. Why??? There is a reason.

Theoretically, MBM could be pregnant again and doesn't want to show it under these special circumstances. I'm only guessing and speculating, what in my eyes would be a reason to miss the vigil. To celebrate the birthday of one of the missing children -Jack-, to me doesn't make sense at all. MBM's mother was also missing at the event, and I think, she didn't want to answer questions about her daughter. MOO

 

[su5ie]

Okay to answer your question I don’t think using media reports (not taken under oath) is a reliable way of establishing an accurate timeline because we have no way of knowing what’s factual or what’s not. Neither has the RCMP released what they believe to be the timeline. IIRC information relating to the timeline was redacted from the released documents indicating it’s being held back, for unknown reasons.

I had actually wondered why certain times were redacted and what would be the reasoning behind omitting them
And preventing them from being known by the public . Particularly the time in which mbm noticed the children missing.

I wondered what others thought the benefit or reason behind holding back this information and why it would be deemed not helpful to put it out into the public domain

 

[MistyWaters]

I had actually wondered why certain times were redacted and what would be the reasoning behind omitting them
And preventing them from being known by the public . Particularly the time in which mbm noticed the children missing.

I wondered what others thought the benefit or reason behind holding back this information and why it would be deemed not helpful to put it out into the public domain

Yes there was a lot of blacked-out type in the documents released, information the RCMP know or have learned but don’t want released to the public. ‘Protecting the integrity of the investigation’ is the typical reason. Whenever a case is solved, I’m always surprised at what little the public knows prior to that especially if it goes to trial. Canada’s LE is extremely tight-lipped. If evidence gets into the public realm, it risks being tossed out at trial.
JMO

 

[musicaljoke]

These are situations from my experience in child protective service during my social work years:

1) parent gives children each a spoonful of benadryl to put nonsleepy children to sleep but oops, the dose was way too big for the smaller children. In one case, there was a total of SIX children.

2) parent gives children small dose of benadryl to make children sleepy, short time later & under drug-induced extremely impatient jumpiness, gave another dose because 1st dose just wasn't working fast enough to suit. Oops. Overdose.

3) parent gives children benadryl to put children to sleep then under heavy alcohol and drug influence, FORGETS they already dosed and does it again. Oops. Overdose.

4) one parent gives kids benadryl, 2nd parent also doses, not knowing 1st parent had already administered. Oops. Overdose.

5) the parent who is not the one who ordinarily administers benadryl doses the children and mistakes larger tablespoon for smaller teaspoon, thereby giving a triple dose accidentally. Oops. Overdose.

There's more but these are just the *accidental* overdose scenarios, or claimed to be accidental. I don't even want to recall the intentional murders. There are SO many ways to murder and disappear children. We see it ALL the time with adults, especially partners and ex partners and it's way WAY easier to dispose of tiny lightweight children bodies.

And yes yes to the accidentally hitting kids with cars.

Both the drug and the car accident scenarios would lead the average person to seek immediate hair-on-fire panicked emergency aid though.

There are definitely reasons why a person who innocently and mistakenly overdosed a kid or hit them with a car might NOT seek aid though. And that sometimes leads to an even larger situation that sets off investigations that have octopus arms leading in many different directions.

A fatal dose of benadryl would require a huge overdose. I won't state the amount required here, but it is far more than just an accidental repeated dose. There has been no evidence released to suggest that a fatal dose of anything was administered.

 

[musicaljoke]

I had actually wondered why certain times were redacted and what would be the reasoning behind omitting them
And preventing them from being known by the public . Particularly the time in which mbm noticed the children missing.

I wondered what others thought the benefit or reason behind holding back this information and why it would be deemed not helpful to put it out into the public domain

If evidence gets put into the public then the defence can request that the evidence be removed from presentation to the jury. It is assumed that the evidence is tainted by not having been tested in court before being heard by the jury.

Keeping evidence from public display protects the evidence from being tested by public opinion rather than by the justice system. Evidence that has been tested in court will become public when it is presented in court.

Sometimes we forget how fortunate we are to have such a meticulous justice system.

 

[su5ie]

Yes there was a lot of blacked-out type in the documents released, information the RCMP know or have learned but don’t want released to the public. ‘Protecting the integrity of the investigation’ is the typical reason. Whenever a case is solved, I’m always surprised at what little the public knows prior to that especially if it goes to trial. Canada’s LE is extremely tight-lipped. If evidence gets into the public realm, it risks being tossed out at trial.
JMO

I do wonder though why the suspected time of the kids going missing is redacted .

If for example the time redacted was 8.30am would that not widen the time in which a witness who may feel that their tip might be invalid due to timeline because janie stated she heard the kids playing near the swing set after her phone call with Ron her brother at timestamp 8.48 am which was not redacted AFAIK

. So say she spoke to Ron for 2 minutes ,the time it might take for him to say do you want a lift into town and for her to decline and say she was going back to bed . This brings the time she alleges she heard the kids to about 8.50 am ( my speculation)

Any person who prehaps thought they saw something at 8.40 am may think there is no point in ringing in the tip as the kids were still supposedly in the trailer or at the very least within the confines of the yard .

All just me musing ,speculating and hypothetically speaking and being inquisitive re the seemingly lack of importance of a specific time being released of when mbm felt they wandered .

 

[su5ie]

If evidence gets put into the public then the defence can request that the evidence be removed from presentation to the jury. It is assumed that the evidence is tainted by not having been tested in court before being heard by the jury.

Keeping evidence from public display protects the evidence from being tested by public opinion rather than by the justice system. Evidence that has been tested in court will become public when it is presented in court.

Sometimes we forget how fortunate we are to have such a meticulous justice system.

Why would the estimated time of the kids wandering be tested by public opinion. ? Surely evidence of a pink blanket belonging to lilly being found 1km from the property would more likely need to have testing as evidence before a jury than the opinion of their mum of when she felt she became aware they were no longer within the confines of the trailer .

And furthermore the releasing of the information that lilly had a black eye at the time of her disappearance , among other facts released that has fuelled more speculation about the disappearance and would that not give more reason for a defence to request this be removed as evidence as surely this would definitely sway any jury members opinion in the negative more so than the timeline . Just curious

 

[MistyWaters]

I do wonder though why the suspected time of the kids going missing is redacted .

If for example the time redacted was 8.30am would that not widen the time in which a witness who may feel that their tip might be invalid due to timeline because janie stated she heard the kids playing near the swing set after her phone call with Ron her brother at timestamp 8.48 am which was not redacted AFAIK

. So say she spoke to Ron for 2 minutes ,the time it might take for him to say do you want a lift into town and for her to decline and say she was going back to bed . This brings the time she alleges she heard the kids to about 8.50 am ( my speculation)

Any person who prehaps thought they saw something at 8.40 am may think there is no point in ringing in the tip as the kids were still supposedly in the trailer or at the very least within the confines of the yard .

All just me musing ,speculating and hypothetically speaking and being inquisitive re the seemingly lack of importance of a specific time being released of when mbm felt they wandered .

It wasn’t until mid July when Janie spoke to the media. For two and a half months prior to that the only specific time known to the public was the 911 call by MBM at “about 10:00am”. By keeping the timeframe wide open during those early months of the investigation, the RCMP gave anyone who believed they had helpful information the opportunity to pass it along.
JMO

 

[Slebby]

in my opinion, the only reason to redact the time the kids went missing is because it differs somehow from what we have seen reported in MSM.
Imo

 

[MistyWaters]

Why would the estimated time of the kids wandering be tested by public opinion. ? Surely evidence of a pink blanket belonging to lilly being found 1km from the property would more likely need to have testing as evidence before a jury than the opinion of their mum of when she felt she became aware they were no longer within the confines of the trailer .

And furthermore the releasing of the information that lilly had a black eye at the time of her disappearance , among other facts released that has fuelled more speculation about the disappearance and would that not give more reason for a defence to request this be removed as evidence as surely this would definitely sway any jury members opinion in the negative more so than the timeline . Just curious

Lilly having a black eye wouldn’t be allowed to be admitted as evidence anyway because it calls for speculation as to how it occurred. Unless it was an accident as DM stated that occured at MBM’s grandmothers house, in which case it has no connection to the case.

But we’ve jumped from what might or might not become evidence with NO charges laid against anyone to responses to your initial question about why the police might be holding back information. Two different topics.

 

[MistyWaters]

in my opinion, the only reason to redact the time the kids went missing is because it differs somehow from what we have seen reported in MSM.
Imo

I agree.

 

[FromGermany1]

If evidence gets put into the public then the defence can request that the evidence be removed from presentation to the jury. It is assumed that the evidence is tainted by not having been tested in court before being heard by the jury.

Keeping evidence from public display protects the evidence from being tested by public opinion rather than by the justice system. Evidence that has been tested in court will become public when it is presented in court.

Sometimes we forget how fortunate we are to have such a meticulous justice system.

This case is (surprisingly) not criminal in nature, but all potential evidence must be protected for a court trial. So it seems.