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

[OneLove]

How do we know he wasn’t out there day after day, already searching every square inch of the same area the cadaver dogs later covered. Would be expect they’d find anything, if he didn’t?

Even if he WAS out there "searching" every day, it could simply be as a cover up. We do not yet know what we do not yet know and must consider EVERY possibility. Remember that IF he committed a heinous crime that disappeared the kids, he is fighting for his life.

Although i have zero firm conviction (because we just don't know), my first thought on his claim of frantically wading through culverts and mud before searchers arrived was it could easily muddle evidence and/or accoint for wet muddied clothing from much earlier than he said. Might, might not. Every possibility must be considered. Its an ongoing investigation.

 

[MistyWaters]

Even if he WAS out there "searching" every day, it could simply be as a cover up. We do not yet know what we do not yet know and must consider EVERY possibility. Remember that IF he committed a heinous crime that disappeared the kids, he is fighting for his life.

Although i have zero firm conviction (because we just don't not know), my first thought on his claim of frantically wading through culverts and mud before searcher arrived was that could easily muddle evidence. Might, might not. Every possibility must be considered. Its an ongoing investigation.

Yes, but what proof is there that he committed a heinous crime that disappeared the kids, other than what’s built upon opinion and speculation?

Every possibility includes DM is as innocent as the day is long.

 

[musicaljoke]

Even if he WAS out there "searching" every day, it could simply be as a cover up. We do not yet know what we do not yet know and must consider EVERY possibility. Remember that IF he committed a heinous crime that disappeared the kids, he is fighting for his life.

Although i have zero firm conviction (because we just don't know), my first thought on his claim of frantically wading through culverts and mud before searchers arrived was it could easily muddle evidence and/or accoint for wet muddied clothing from much earlier than he said. Might, might not. Every possibility must be considered. Its an ongoing investigation.

Except that is exactly what most of us would do if our kids were missing. Would we wait for searchers to arrive, or would we frantically search everywhere including the culverts? His account rings true. Now if he said that he just made a quick trip into town to pick up the dry cleaning while waiting for the searchers, then I would give him a stink-eye.

 

[flowershop]

There would be an email trail, or bank irregularities, or witnesses, or unusual vehicle activity, or airport video, or evidence of an irregular passport. Taking a child out of Canada is no easy task. This is not nearly as simple as one could imagine.

Could Jack and Lilly have been taken to tribal land? Would it be harder for RCMP to search there?

Just thought it might be worth considering since the children are First Nation and their family may have connections there.

 

[OneLove]

Except that is exactly what most of us would do if our kids were missing. Would we wait for searchers to arrive, or would we frantically search everywhere including the culverts? His account rings true. Now if he said that he just made a quick trip into town to pick up the dry cleaning while waiting for the searchers, then I would give him a stink-eye.

Yes, absolutely and understood. But at the same time, this action does not prove he is innocent either or that he does not know more than he is telling.

Its still an open investigation. Every possibility is still on the table until it is not.

 

[Bigditch]

Could Jack and Lilly have been taken to tribal land? Would it be harder for RCMP to search there?

Just thought it might be worth considering since the children are First Nation and their family may have connections there.

Yes that theory was talked about earlier on. Who knows, but the general consensus was probably not likely.

 

[Marzipan]

I've just remembered lily got a black eye at patti's was this this Wednesday. They were officially off school that day for teacher training. But the Thursday and Friday they were meant to be in school

I had often wondered if the parents checked to see if lilly was still too sick for school on Friday. And I thought a black eye is not a good look if you've had recent cps visitation .

I don't think the kids were sick I think they were kept home to hide an injury . Lilly's visible injury and the chance jack might tell would be motivation enough to ring in a sick day for both .

Now what if lilly wanted to go to school . I wonder did she have access to an ipad or phone . If she had discord she could potentially call someone if she had been given a number by someone to ring in case of emergency. After all we are given the impression things weren't rosy in the garden at home

Prehaps someone had told her if you ever need anything call me . The staff were providing for the children . Could a well intentioned person have collected them to teach the parents a lesson and then it blew up too big to confess

I wonder did lilly have a secret number in her backpack or a phone ?? That's why she kept it close ?

Pure speculation and possibly overactive imagination and just my alternative scenario

Or a not well-intentioned person? I mean, as long as you are thinking about a phone or iPad hidden in the backpack.
Not my primary thinking but I like the fresh ideas so taking off on them. Is Lilly too young to be groomed to that degree or not?

 

[musicaljoke]

Could Jack and Lilly have been taken to tribal land? Would it be harder for RCMP to search there?

Just thought it might be worth considering since the children are First Nation and their family may have connections there.

It is not more difficult to search on First Nations land than anywhere else. Some reserves have their own police, and others are policed by the RCMP. Generally the RCMP and First Nations Police Services work together on cases of mutual interest.

 

[MistyWaters]

Yes, absolutely and understood. But at the same time, this action does not prove he is innocent either or that he does not know more than he is telling.

Its still an open investigation. Every possibility is still on the table until it is not.

Yes it sure is still an ongoing investigation so please allow us to discuss it with an open mind. As DM’s not been charged, let alone convicted, one possibility on the table is that he’s entirely innocent of any criminal involvement.

 

[OneLove]

Yes it sure is still an ongoing investigation so please allow us to discuss it with an open mind. As DM’s not been charged, let alone convicted, one possibility on the table is that he’s entirely innocent of any criminal involvement.

Of course. And likewise, one possibility is he's entirely NOT innocent.

Any strong lean one way or the other without evidence is sheer wishfullness.
I'm very well aware of that.

An open investigation is for the purpose of recovering the children and no possibilities are excluded on the basis of emotion rather than evidence.

 

[Sillybilly]

Of course. And likewise, one possibility is he's entirely NOT innocent.

Any strong lean one way or the other without evidence is sheer wishfullness.
I'm very well aware of that.

An open investigation is for the purpose of recovering the children and no possibilities are excluded on the basis of emotion rather than evidence.

ADMIN NOTE:

The big difference though is ... that to speculate family are not innocent is a violation of one of Websleuths most fundamental principles. We basically give them the benefit of the doubt until it is no longer possible to do so.

from: The Rules: Etiquette & Information

VICTIM FRIENDLY

Websleuths is a victim friendly forum. Attacking or bashing a victim is not allowed. Discussing known victim behavior, good or bad is fine, but do so in a civil and constructive way, and only when such behavior is known to be relevant to the case.

The "victim friendly" rule extends to family members of victims and suspects. Sleuthing family members, friends, or others who have not been officially designated by law enforcement or in mainstream media as a Person of Interest or suspect is not allowed (i.e. Sleuthing out this type of information, and publicly posting their social media, personal information, including names, addresses, and background data -- even if it is public is not allowed and such posts will be removed, along with any posts that encourage such sleuthing).

This does not mean, however, that statements made by family members and other third parties cannot come into discussion as the facts of the case are reported in the media. Members may reasonably discuss what is said in MSM by them or about them, but do not make random accusations, insinuations, suggest their involvement, trash, bash or attack them, or speculate negatively about them.

 

[LadyL]

Doesn’t it seam inappropriate for a handler to be having that conversation

I think it was likely a police officer trained as a handler but still ... seems odd to me as well.