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

[Hexe]

Doesn't it seem unusual to turn lights on to check that quiet, sleeping children in their dark bedrooms are asleep? Turning lights on means that they might be woken up, which is the last thing parents want to do in the middle of the night.

First, we do not know what kind of light it was. Second, the room was probably, considering the remoteness of the property, pitch black. Third, many kids are perfectly capable of playing without making much noise, while they should be asleep. Fourth, these kids were suspected of being on spectrum, and that usually comes with plethora of sleep issues. So controlling if they were really asleep might have been necessary.

Don't the children put on their pyjamas at bedtime, and is it that hard to figure out what their pyjamas look like?

Usually the kids have more than one pj set, these kids, as we know from Malehya, were also sometimes put to bed in their day clothes (it was so at that particular evening). The clothes the children wore to bed were what they wore when they went missing. There was no space for guesses.

How does turning on a light and seeing children asleep relate to getting children ready for bed and wearing pyjamas?

Daniel was busy outside while Malehya put them into bed, so he did not see what they were wearing at that time. The only time he saw them after they got to bed was wen he checked up on them.

 

[Hexe]

Not only that, but when asked about their pyjamas, he responded by talking about turning lights on in the middle of the night. It doesn't answer the question, but instead provides an illogical excuse for not knowing what they wore to bed.

It does. He explained that he did not see what they wore to bed because they were under the covers already. This thread goes into a seriously weird direction.

 

[Ontario Mom]

I learned something from these threads called presplaining, credit another poster.

It's when a perpetrator of a crime tells a narrative that ties (known and unknown) evidence together.

Confirming the children were sleeping, providing a possible explanation for vehicling, the backpack, the sweaters.

I'll let you decide if you think there's any of that happening here.

JMO

The impression I get from DM is that he already knows folks think he had something to do with those kids going missing (despite the fact the RCMP have not called him a suspect or POI, the public certainly have) so when he speaks he's attempting to recall every detail, important or not, to explain himself. I also think he's terrible at explaining himself, and wish he'd just stop talking.

jmo

 

[Hexe]

<modsnip: Quoted post was removed>

Malehya was the one putting kids to bed, as clearly stated both by her and by Daniel.

 

[TMich6811]

It does. He explained that he did not see what they wire to bed because they were under the covers already. This thread goes into a seriously weird direction.

2 children have been missing for 5 months.
Sorry - not sure what direction this is expected to go. IMO the seriously weird is that the children have been missing for 5 months, not the folks trying to figure out why the children have been missing for 5 months.

 

[Hexe]

2 children have been missing for 5 months.
Sorry - not sure what direction this is expected to go.

I absolutely understand that after such a long period with no results the suspicion falls at the caregivers. What I find weird here is looking for the holes where there are none, especially that we do not have full transcripts of the police interviews, just the resume of the info given. We do not know what questions were exactly asked and how the answers looked like. Infering from the, again, a resume of info that someone was changing the topic is stretching things past the limit of the facts

 

[Megnut]

I absolutely understand that after such a long period with no results the suspicion falls at the caregivers. What I find weird here is looking for the holes where there are none, especially that we do not have full transcripts of the police interviews, just the resume of the info given. We do not know what questions were exactly asked and how the answers looked like. Infering from the, again, a resume of info that someone was changing the topic is stretching things past the limit of the facts

I absolutely hope the parents are entirely innocent.

I absolutely hope the children are somehow safe somewhere and will defy all statistics.

And you are so right, we have little information. Even when there are arrests in a case, there's a lot we can't know, until trials.

But here we are on WS, trying to anticipate how this will resolve. I think we all come at this with our own perspectives, biases, etc.

Me, I'm just making note of things that, if I were LE, I'd circle in red on my whiteboard. Does that make one or another person guilty of this crime or that? For sure no.

Some stories we've seen before. Heaven help us.

JMO

 

[otto]

It depends. It could have been a hall light or bathroom light he turned on. I always checked on my kids at night and almost always had to turn some sort of light on so I could actually see into their rooms. That doesn't seem unusual at all to me.

Didn't they live in a trailer? There's not a lot of room for hallways. There's no reason to mention that he turned on a light to check on sleeping children since he needed a light to get to the children's bedroom. It's an irrelevant, unnecessary point that does not answer the question of what children were wearing when they went to bed.

Has anyone looked at floor plans for the trailer to see whether it all makes sense?

I see three doors: front door, back door, sliding door. The front door was barricaded with a wrench (per father statement). Back door is likely off kitchen, sliding door may be off dining, and front door may be off living room. Appears to be roughly 15-18' x 60'.

<modsnip: Images removed due to no links to source>

 

[Hexe]

There's no reason to mention that he turned on a light to check on sleeping children since he needed a light to get to the children's bedroom. It's an irrelevant, unnecessary point that does not answer the question of what children were wearing when they went to bed.

Yet it is hard to infer anything from it's existence without access to the full record of the interview with Daniel. We do not know if he provided that info unprompted, or if he was asked to elaborate on that last time he saw both children. We do not know what questions were asked so how we can estimate if there was any ill will on Daniel's part?

 

[otto]

I absolutely understand that after such a long period with no results the suspicion falls at the caregivers. What I find weird here is looking for the holes where there are none, especially that we do not have full transcripts of the police interviews, just the resume of the info given. We do not know what questions were exactly asked and how the answers looked like. Infering from the, again, a resume of info that someone was changing the topic is stretching things past the limit of the facts

There is new information - specifically than more than one neighbour independently heard a vehicle at the property in the middle of the night. I have always given the benefit of the doubt to the parents, but now I'm not so sure.

The fact that the father immediately drove away from the property, rather than search the property, is very unusual. That has never made sense.

 

[su5ie]

I absolutely understand that after such a long period with no results the suspicion falls at the caregivers. What I find weird here is looking for the holes where there are none, especially that we do not have full transcripts of the police interviews, just the resume of the info given. We do not know what questions were exactly asked and how the answers looked like. Infering from the, again, a resume of info that someone was changing the topic is stretching things past the limit of the facts

From the outset of a young child going missing usually suspicion falls on the caregivers not only from the public but from LE too hence why the polygraphs in this case and in most cases a parent will be questioned as a potential suspect to eliminate if nothing else . Our brains are also primally hardwired to spot danger or to see the negative

I think from the known facts of the case ,one doesn't have to stretch the imagination too far to see slight or major discrepancies or red flags and I don't feel we are stretching things to suspect that something might be going on other than a wandering.

You are correct, we don't know what questions we're asked and we don't know if the questions we are posing about information released have already been answered.

But topics that have been raised such as vehicle coming and going , scant details and description at the beginning of clothing worn by children, etc stood out to be questioned and debated as to whether they had anything relevant to the kids disappearing.

I think everyone has taken great care and respect in allowing the parents presumption of innocence but at what point do details released in msm give raise to queries private or otherwise of the possibility that all is not as it would seem and raise eyebrows as to whether or not everything the parents state can be innocently twaddled away

Do we presume the 2 witnesses are lying ? Are they not also afforded the same respect that they are truth telling ?

At the centre of all discussions the kids are still missing and not one iota of evidence has been released to show they are in or went into the woods , so to reflect on other scenarios based on known facts is human nature imo

JMHO

 

[Ontario Mom]

Didn't they live in a trailer? There's not a lot of room for hallways. There's no reason to mention that he turned on a light to check on sleeping children since he needed a light to get to the children's bedroom. It's an irrelevant, unnecessary point that does not answer the question of what children were wearing when they went to bed.

Has anyone looked at floor plans for the trailer to see whether it all makes sense?

I see three doors: front door, back door, sliding door. The front door was barricaded with a wrench (per father statement). Back door is likely off kitchen, sliding door may be off dining, and front door may be off living room. Appears to be roughly 15-18' x 60'.

View attachment 620523

View attachment 620524

View attachment 620525

I've lived in a trailer almost identical to the layout of this one. Which is why I suggested it might have been a hall light or bathroom light that he turned on.

 

[su5ie]

Dbm , Googled info instead and not relevant

 

[Sillybilly]

Do we presume the 2 witnesses are lying ? Are they not also afforded the same respect that they are truth telling ?

<rsbm>

but IIRC ... we also have a witness who claims to have seen 2 children who looked like Lilly and Jack walking toward a gold coloured vehicle where a woman with curly hair appeared to be waiting for them outside the car.

The difference in discussion here at Websleuths is that family members are victims unless officially named by LE to be a POI or suspect.

 

[su5ie]

<rsbm>

IIRC, we also have a witness who claims to have seen 2 children who looked like Lilly and Jack walking toward a gold coloured vehicle where a woman with curly hair appeared to be waiting for them outside the car.

The difference in discussion here at Websleuths is that family members are victims unless officially named by LE to be a POI or suspect.

Absolutely , family are victims . I'm wondering if witnesses can be suspected of lying or does it all come under the one umbrella

 

[Slebby]

Absolutely , family are victims . I'm wondering if witnesses can be suspected of lying or does it all come under the one umbrella

I don’t see why it’s not possible for everyone to be telling the truth. Isn’t it possible the car came and went in the night and DM and MBM slept through it?

Witnesses coming forward with potentially helpful eyewitness reports should be thanked for possibly advancing the investigation, imo.

 

[otto]

Absolutely , family are victims . I'm wondering if witnesses can be suspected of lying or does it all come under the one umbrella

This new information adds to what we already knew. If the vehicle - that was heard by two independent witnesses during the night - did not belong to either of the parents, who did it belong to? How does it relate to the missing children?

If the children were heard playing in the yard, and suddenly they were quiet, why drive away? It seems unusual to consider that four and six year-old rural children would follow a road.

"Two people who live near Jack and Lilly Sullivan's home told police they heard a vehicle coming and going in the middle of the night, just hours before the Nova Scotia children were reported missing, court documents show.
...

[Witness 1]
“He said his residence is at an elevated position from Daniel's residence and he could see vehicle lights over the treetops,” said RCMP Cpl. Charlene Curl in her written request to the court. “He said the vehicle left three or four times after midnight and into the early hours of the morning. He said the vehicle would drive off in the distance and he could hear it stop and then return. He said it remained in earshot the entire time.”
...

[Witness 2]
“It made noise then went quiet. The vehicle was quiet for about two minutes then drove towards Lairg Road,” the RCMP member wrote."

[contradictory Mother/Father statements]
"The records detail Martell’s account of the evening before the children were reported missing. He told police he went to bed “fairly early” and didn’t wake up until it was light the next morning.

The documents said Brooks-Murray told police she put Lilly and Jack to bed first, then their one-year-old daughter, and then went to bed herself around 9 p.m. She said Martell stayed up and was going to clean the house for her, but it wasn’t clean when she got up so she “doesn't know what he did.”

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/lilly-jack-sullivan-missing-children-court-documents-car-vehicle-9.6943179

 

[Hexe]

There is new information - specifically than more than one neighbour independently heard a vehicle at the property in the middle of the night. I have always given the benefit of the doubt to the parents, but now I'm not so sure.

Sure. We do not know who was driving though and what it was about.

The fact that the father immediately drove away from the property, rather than search the property, is very unusual. That has never made sense.

How do we know he immediately drove away? Where was it stated?

 

[Sarahlou]

How do we know he immediately drove away? Where was it stated?

"As soon as I seen they were gone, immediately jumped in the car and did all the dirt roads, all the culverts, checked over the rivers and streams. As soon as I got home 10 minutes later, I headed out on foot.”

Two Nova Scotia children are still missing. Here’s a timeline of key events since the siblings vanished

Six-year-old Lilly Sullivan and her four-year-old brother Jack were reported missing from their home in Pictou County on May 2

www.theglobeandmail.com

 

[Mauig’ma]

"As soon as I seen they were gone, immediately jumped in the car and did all the dirt roads, all the culverts, checked over the rivers and streams. As soon as I got home 10 minutes later, I headed out on foot.”

Two Nova Scotia children are still missing. Here’s a timeline of key events since the siblings vanished

Six-year-old Lilly Sullivan and her four-year-old brother Jack were reported missing from their home in Pictou County on May 2

www.theglobeandmail.com

Seems like a lot of searching in such a short amount of time imo