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

[Serononin]

Regarding the bolded above the answer is YES, and it's always yes. Every single police investigation has elements, details and information they never release to the public, for the sake of the integrity of the investigation.

It's only after the fact, say in an arrest or a trial, or when a body is located, etc., that we find out just HOW much info LE never released to the public. It's happened in every case I've ever followed in the 50 years I've been following true crime.

For a start, they know all the information that was redacted in those court documents that were released recently! And I'm sure plenty more besides

 

[Lalalacasbah]

I hope LE will do another drone search as well and go off the beaten track a bit and expand.

After the news of Travis Decker's remains likely found, I hope LE will reconsider doing another drone search soon before snow as well. MOO JMO

 

[Serononin]

I thought that wording strange also.

It almost feels like they haven't found evidence that points definitively towards *any* particular scenario, so now they're going back to square one and looking in the woods again

 

[MistyWaters]

I think it's interesting that it includes the quote , we have no evidence to suggest the children are dead at this time .

Particularly with the unstoppable insinuation/ rumour or rather the unrealistic hope that the children are being hidden for reason unknown

Surely LE are more than aware of that speculation

It also says LE have found no evidence to indicates any person/s was either directly or indirectly involved in the children’s’ deaths including hiding or concealing their bodies. Due to lack of proof of criminality along with the fruitless initial search, then IMO it’s accurate for LE to conclude at this time they have no evidence to suggest the children are dead.

JMO

 

[MistyWaters]

It almost feels like they haven't found evidence that points definitively towards *any* particular scenario, so now they're going back to square one and looking in the woods again

Exactly, back to square one and the use of cadaver dogs to hopefully discover the bodies, furthering their initial theory of the children wandering off into the woods, assuming no criminality is revealed.

 

[Twistinginthewind]

A bit upthread, OP provided a link to a quote from LE in MSM that the dogs they searched with at the beginning and when they returned during those 2 previous searches for Lilly and Jack were trained to both detect scents of missing people alive and/or recently deceased.

With that information now made clear -- the dogs would have been able to detect their scents alive and their remains if recently deceased -- during searches recently after they disappeared -- IMO, it doesn't seem like there would be any reason to also bring in cadaver dogs as well back then.

Now it's a different situation, and with no evidence of them being taken elsewhere 4 months on, the only conclusion is they need to search with cadaver dogs in case they are near to home in which case they would be deceased for a long time now, and new searches with dogs that can detect older scents of death is appropriate now.

I realize it's a subtlety, but now they have stated this, it makes much more sense that cadaver dogs will be used now & the dogs before were also capable of scenting their remains at that time.

MOO

 

[MistyWaters]

More Daniel. A couple observations -
At the beginning he says “he knows 100% the dogs won’t find anything”. However the reporters initial question that he’s answering is cut out and watching it through it becomes obvious he’s referring to the children won’t be found buried or hidden on his own 2 acre property.

He mentions 70000 drone photos were taken of the area. He says these photos were studied and IMO that’s what was used to determine the areas of priority for the cadaver dogs to check out. He seems very supportive of the work of the RCMP is doing/has done so far. JMO

 

[musicaljoke]

What is the likelihood of two siblings of that age wandering together and staying stuck together like Hansel and Gretel, and neither of them being discovered because neither of them knew they were starving or made a loud enough fuss or walked far enough as a result of this so that someone heard them, though?

It is quite possible that the two were staying ahead of the searchers and tucked in under some uprooted trees to shield themselves from the cold, drizzly night. They weren't dressed for the cold and could have suffered dangerous hypothermia and died out of sight.

 

[Chimera]

More Daniel. A couple observations -
At the beginning he says “he knows 100% the dogs won’t find anything”. However the reporters initial question that he’s answering is cut out and watching it through it becomes obvious he’s referring to the children won’t be found buried or hidden on his own 2 acre property.

He mentions 70000 drone photos were taken of the area. He says these photos were studied and IMO that’s what was used to determine the areas of priority for the cadaver dogs to check out. He seems very supportive of the work of the RCMP is doing/has done so far. JMO

Bbm.
Thanks for the link, it's an interesting video clip !
Re. the emphasized; Tbh it wasn't completely clear to me what DM meant.
The reporter's question is either cut out or edited, and it's not obvious what DM is saying without context, imo ?
Somehow I didn't infer that (bolded) from DM's response, but more like he's acknowledging the work LE have done searching on their property.

I do wonder why he is confident they won't be found on that property, of that he seems certain.
After all JonBenet was found in the own basement, so it's not a given Jack and Lilly will never be found on their land or close by.
Still waiting for LE to rule out certain scenarios and so far outside of kidnapping they're staying silent.
Also still waiting for MBM to speak up publicly about her kids.

Hoping for a break soon.
Only my opinion.

 

[squareandrabbet]

There is no other case I can recall of siblings going missing together by wandering off generally it's an abduction that's documented to have happened or all evidence points to that and in general it is usually by a relative in a custody battle , off the top of my head the Beaumont children are the only ones I can think of right now

I remember at the start looking into the facts surrounding sibling disappearance and it is extremely rare worldwide

I suppose technically anything could have happened; but I do think/agree it's easier to disappear two small bodies together than it is for two small runaways with their own agency to get disappeared and never found again.

 

[Lalalacasbah]

It is quite possible that the two were staying ahead of the searchers and tucked in under some uprooted trees to shield themselves from the cold, drizzly night. They weren't dressed for the cold and could have suffered dangerous hypothermia and died out of sight.

I feel this is the scenario if they were lost. They likely would have sought shelter/refuge, succumbed to the cold/elements being so small.

I believe a child would make a makeshift type "fort" from tree base or dugout, leaves, branches, etc. I see my kids do these things when we're in nature or at the beach (logs washed up, rocks, etc). They will make stuff with what's around them.

Children can be crafty and imaginative, so I wouldn't be surprised if lost, these children will be very hard to find.

 

[Lalalacasbah]

Bbm.
Thanks for the link, it's an interesting video clip !
Re. the emphasized; Tbh it wasn't completely clear to me what DM meant.
The reporter's question is either cut out or edited, and it's not obvious what DM is saying without context, imo ?
Somehow I didn't infer that (bolded) from DM's response, but more like he's acknowledging the work LE have done searching on their property.

I do wonder why he is confident they won't be found on that property, of that he seems certain.
After all JonBenet was found in the own basement, so it's not a given Jack and Lilly will never be found on their land or close by.
Still waiting for LE to rule out certain scenarios and so far outside of kidnapping they're staying silent.
Also still waiting for MBM to speak up publicly about her kids.

Hoping for a break soon.
Only my opinion.

I get what you're saying and I think it could definitely go both ways.

Either he's confident because he knows he didn't do anything wrong and felt he searched well or possibly a Freudian slip...

 

[Bigditch]

I suppose technically anything could have happened; but I do think/agree it's easier to disappear two small bodies together than it is for two small runaways with their own agency to get disappeared and never found again.

Well said.

 

[MistyWaters]

I feel this is the scenario if they were lost. They likely would have sought shelter/refuge, succumbed to the cold/elements being so small.

I believe a child would make a makeshift type "fort" from tree base or dugout, leaves, branches, etc. I see my kids do these things when we're in nature or at the beach (logs washed up, rocks, etc). They will make stuff with what's around them.

Children can be crafty and imaginative, so I wouldn't be surprised if lost, these children will be very hard to find.

I agree and I think it’s difficult to imagine the area that was searched. We each have in our mind a forest that’s most familiar to us. JMO

Chris Lewis: Amid criticism, RCMP have ‘pulled out all the stops’ in search for missing N.S. children

In the face of community and social media criticism, the RCMP have "pulled out all the stops" in the case of missing Nova Scotia children Lilly and Jack Sullivan, says CTV public safety analyst Chris Lewis.

www.ctvnews.ca

A couple of months later, a search master told the media that she believed the kids were still in that area and offered a variety of theories why. She explained how difficult it was for searchers to even see the ground right immediately beside them while walking.

 

[MistyWaters]

I get what you're saying and I think it could definitely go both ways.

Either he's confident because he knows he didn't do anything wrong and felt he searched well or possibly a Freudian slip...

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.

 

[teeby]

Remember early on they said chances the children were alive were low? I wonder if they're intentionally walking that back now or if they just mean they don't have any concrete evidence in favor of anything.

(Source: this is an old article! Canadian police scale back search for two children missing in woods for six days)

 

[MistyWaters]

Remember early on they said chances the children were alive were low? I wonder if they're intentionally walking that back now or if they just mean they don't have any concrete evidence in favor of anything.

(Source: this is an old article! Canadian police scale back search for two children missing in woods for six days)

Yes how I remember it is initially the RCMP believed the children wandered into the woods and considering they didn’t rescue them, they acknowledged the chances of their survival after 6 days in the wilderness was low. But not finding the bodies isn’t proof of death nor is it proof the children wandered away. I think the RCMP sincerely would like to bring closure to this investigation by providing the family members with answers and hopefully cadaver dogs will assist their endeavours.
JMO

 

[IzzyBlanche]

I get what you're saying and I think it could definitely go both ways.

Either he's confident because he knows he didn't do anything wrong and felt he searched well or possibly a Freudian slip...

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?

 

[MistyWaters]

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?

Did you listened to the full interview? The question he was answering was conveniently (or not) dropped from the beginning of the interview recorded on video making it appear he was referring to the use of cadavers dogs in general. Notice the reporter doesn’t even ask why he thinks that? Then later he talks about ‘his’ 2 acres, also the ridiculous things being said on SM. Is the prevailing theory he buried the children out the back door or something? If so It’s not a surprise he’s 100% adamant the search dogs will not find them there.

IMO I think it’s really poor taste for CBC to have cut out the question he was asked, adding yet more drama and speculation to a missing children’s case that’s had too much of that already.
JMO

 

[IzzyBlanche]

Did you listen to the full interview? The question he was answering was conveniently (or not) dropped from the video making it appear he was referring to the use of cadavers dogs in general. But later he talks about ‘his’ 2 acres, also the ridiculous things being said on SM. Is the prevailing theory he buried the children out the back door or something? If so It’s not a surprise he’s 100% adamant the search dogs will not find them there.

IMO I think it’s really poor taste for CBC to have cut out the question he was asked, adding yet more drama and speculation to a missing children’s case that’s had too much of that already.
JMO

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.