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

[Andreee]

A few comments back, sunspun has an excellent post regarding this! The Cliff's Notes version is that yes, it seems that his vehicle was in his dad's garage at some point, but Daniel is also quoted as saying that his car never left the property that night (in response to the allegation that neighbours heard it repeatedly). I would take that to mean that his vehicle was in fact at their property the night in question, and then later ended up at his dad's. If you think about it, if it were at his dad's that night, he would have said that, as it makes a better alibi than him insisting it was there, but he didn't use it. I hope I'm making sense!

I'm not suggesting that any of this means anything nefarious or that he definitely used his car that night. If he was up to no good, he would have used the much quieter car, surely. I do believe the neighbours heard something, though, seeing as though it's not just one person alleging it, but two. I don't even know where I stand with anything anymore, honestly!

As I mentioned in my last post, I can totally see someone working on their car at night, with just an outside light and in the quiet hours. I just thought of another reason for someone to be driving a short distance back and forth in their streets at night, to calm a restless crying baby.

 

[tlcya]

It puzzles me how some people can presume a published tip is automatically 100% accurate and truthful beyond any doubt.

BBM

N.S. missing kids: Court documents provide details on Lilly and Jack Sullivan case | Globalnews.ca

Included in several documents are confirmation that investigators found a second piece of a pink blanket they say belonged to Lilly, in the trash.

globalnews.ca

“None of the tips so far have led to Jack and Lilly’s location or has any information that has been corroborated by the investigation,” a document notes.

In my mind, a lack of evidence is not evidence of innocence or guilt. It is simply a lack. JMO

Lack of surveillance video footage to me simply means no video evidence supports that a vehicle was coming and going. It does not mean none was.

 

[MistyWaters]

,ko


No surveillance footage isn't necessarily one and the same with no vehicle activity.

Possibly there's just no vehicle activity on the cctv available.

Because no vehicle went that way.
It went another way. Where there were no cameras.

Does this include no footage of vehicle activity, including when the step-dad was driving around, while looking for the children? Same principle? No CCTV on the routes taken? And no confirmation of a vehicle where one would have been?

I want to know more.

JMO

Do you sincerely expect the RCMP to reveal the inside details of their investigation to the public, just to prove why they couldn’t validate this tip? It’s not going to happen.
JMO

 

[Ontario Mom]

Why is everybody ignoring the sentence under the title that says:

RCMP say review of surveillance footage found no evidence of vehicle activity

I never even saw that until you pointed it out. From the article:

"However, RCMP confirmed Monday a thorough review of surveillance footage from the Gairloch Road area of Pictou County found "no evidence of any vehicle activity at that time." "No driver has been identified, and the presence of a vehicle has not been substantiated as a key element in the investigation," RCMP communications adviser Allison Gerrard wrote in an email to CBC."

This literally (IMO) says both neighbors were wrong & there was no car.

 

[MistyWaters]

In my mind, a lack of evidence is not evidence of innocence or guilt. It is simply a lack. JMO

Lack of surveillance video footage to me simply means no video evidence supports that a vehicle was coming and going. It does not mean none was.

It does not say “lack of surveillance footage”.

It says “review of surveillance footage” indicating there was footage to review.

 

[tlcya]

I never even saw that until you pointed it out. From the article:

"However, RCMP confirmed Monday a thorough review of surveillance footage from the Gairloch Road area of Pictou County found "no evidence of any vehicle activity at that time." "No driver has been identified, and the presence of a vehicle has not been substantiated as a key element in the investigation," RCMP communications adviser Allison Gerrard wrote in an email to CBC."

This literally says both neighbors were wrong & there was no car.

IMO it depends on where that video camera was located and if that camera covered all access points to Gairloch Road (ETA which is a very long road)

 

[Slebby]

It puzzles me how some people can presume a published tip is automatically 100% accurate and truthful beyond any doubt.

BBM

N.S. missing kids: Court documents provide details on Lilly and Jack Sullivan case | Globalnews.ca

Included in several documents are confirmation that investigators found a second piece of a pink blanket they say belonged to Lilly, in the trash.

globalnews.ca

“None of the tips so far have led to Jack and Lilly’s location or has any information that has been corroborated by the investigation,” a document notes.

I’m not sure anyone said the tip is 100% accurate and truthful beyond doubt.

Speaking for myself, I believe, when two witnesses have come forward regarding the movement of a car that night, one corroborates the other.

At the very least, we have no evidence to suggest these witnesses are anything less than sincere, and only trying to help. It is only my own opinion, but I believe this to be the case.

IMHO

 

[TMich6811]

I never even saw that until you pointed it out. From the article:

"However, RCMP confirmed Monday a thorough review of surveillance footage from the Gairloch Road area of Pictou County found "no evidence of any vehicle activity at that time." "No driver has been identified, and the presence of a vehicle has not been substantiated as a key element in the investigation," RCMP communications adviser Allison Gerrard wrote in an email to CBC."

This literally says both neighbors were wrong & there was no car.

It doesn’t say that. It does not at all literally say the neighbors are wrong

It says they don’t have evidence to substantiate it

Imo - in a continued ongoing investigation where they are still gathering evidence

 

[OneLove]

It does not say “lack of surveillance footage”.

It says “review of surveillance footage” indicating there was footage to review.

Its vital to keep in mind that we do NOT know what area their surveillance covered nor where cameras and GPS tech were in use. Did ANY of that cover the exact location of the family properties and where the car was reportedly heard going back and forth in the dead of night? If those areas were not covered under whatever surveillance tech was reviewed, then it is a huge mistake to ass ume that these statements cover that property. It could simply indicate wherever there was technology in use. Way down the road? At an intersection? Does this simply mean the reported gold car was not seen within that specific area the technology covered. Is there even any location technology that covers the collective family properties? We do not know.

The statements released do not mean any more than they very specifically state. To add or subtract from them can lead one waaay off base if we only see what we WANT to see in them. Evidence is solid fact and carries no emotion.

 

[Ontario Mom]

It doesn’t say that. It does not at all literally say the neighbors are wrong

It says they don’t have evidence to substantiate it in a continued ongoing investigation where they are still gathering evidence

It was an informal use of the word "literally".

Witnesses are saying one thing, the RCMP is saying after a thorough review of the footage there's no evidence of what they're saying.

I'll state that in my opinion, the RCMP is saying these neighbors are wrong.

 

[MistyWaters]

I’m not sure anyone said the tip is 100% accurate and truthful beyond doubt.

Speaking for myself, I believe, when two witnesses have come forward regarding the movement of a car that night, one corroborates the other.

At the very least, we have no evidence to suggest these witnesses are anything less than sincere, and only trying to help. It is only my own opinion, but I believe this to be the case.

IMHO

IMO it’s becomes less believable when two potential tipsters have talked together about the tip. Depending on their relationship maybe tipster A convinced tipster B he had to have heard the vehicle going back and forth. Another mark against this tip is it wasn’t made until six days after the fact.

Justice would never prevail if LE took all tips at face value because they’re reluctant to question the sincerity of tipsters. The public including potential suspects expect the Police to scrutinize tips.

 

[TMich6811]

Has anyone seen any info provided by the friends Daniel used to search on day 2? Wondering what their opinions of the area and vibe that day were

Lilly and Jack Sullivan Documents - 1 — the Canadian Gothic

searcn and seizure application related to telephones belonging to Daniel and Malehya

thecanadiangothic.com

 

[Greenestdays]

I missed that - I wonder how much surveillance coverage there is on that road? Enough to fully rule out what the witnesses described? Enough to rule out any theory involving the children travelling (voluntarily or otherwise) on the road? That could certainly explain why the police were so quick to say there was no evidence of abduction

As one of the men claimed he saw headlights skimming the trees you wouldn’t even need coverage of the road per se, just something from a similar vantage point to corroborate or disprove the claim.

I remember faintly something along the lines that a few weeks into the search police made an appeal for cctv footage from a specific area. Perhaps that was to check these claims? Who knows. But from my understanding the police is stating that there was no vehicle movement evident over the night in question.

 

[Ontario Mom]

IMO it depends on where that video camera was located and if that camera covered all access points to Gairloch Road (ETA which is a very long road)

Yes, I would agree. The way the question was answered in the email sent to the CBC gave me the impression that they (RCMP) at least have footage of key areas near the house/driveway and would have seen any vehicle coming or going during the time frame the neighbors claimed to have heard one. It seemed like a pretty confident response that there isn't any evidence of vehicle activity.

jmo

 

[MistyWaters]

I never even saw that until you pointed it out. From the article:

"However, RCMP confirmed Monday a thorough review of surveillance footage from the Gairloch Road area of Pictou County found "no evidence of any vehicle activity at that time." "No driver has been identified, and the presence of a vehicle has not been substantiated as a key element in the investigation," RCMP communications adviser Allison Gerrard wrote in an email to CBC."

This literally (IMO) says both neighbors were wrong & there was no car.

Instead of writing an updated article, CBC left the title the same and edited in the paragraph you posted just two hours ago. Other than greenestdays noticing, I wouldn’t have either. This news report was from three days ago, a rather sneaky way of CBC clarifying their earlier reporting IMO.

Witnesses describe hearing vehicle the night before N.S. children reported missing​

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

 

[Megnut]

Do you sincerely expect the RCMP to reveal the inside details of their investigation to the public, just to prove why they couldn’t validate this tip? It’s not going to happen.
JMO

No, I would never expect that.

But I can (over) analyze what is reported.

And I can earmark which questions of mine remain unanswered.

JMO

 

[Ontario Mom]

Whatever the neighbors heard or thought they heard the night before the kids went missing, it's a good reminder that eyewitness testimony (especially post-event memories) is notoriously unreliable for a whole boatload of reasons. Huge article on it here: Innocence at Stake - Chapter 3 - PPSC

 

[Slebby]

IMO it’s becomes less believable when two potential tipsters have talked together about the tip. Depending on their relationship maybe tipster A convinced tipster B he had to have heard the vehicle going back and forth. Another mark against this tip is it wasn’t made until six days after the fact.

Justice would never prevail if LE took all tips at face value because they’re reluctant to question the sincerity of tipsters. The public including potential suspects expect the Police to scrutinize tips.

Again there is literally nothing in my comment which suggests police should not question the sincerity of tipsters.

A sincere tip can also be sincerely mistaken. I note, there was nothing documented by LE to suggest these men came forward to lie about the non existent movements of a car.

We know Wong was interviewed on May 9th. We don’t know if he reported it May 9th. If he waited to report, we don’t know his reasons for waiting to report. Until we do, I’m not sure why this makes him less believable. The woman who came forward with a sighting of 2 kids approaching a woman in a gold car also waited to report. I also have no reason to believe she was less sincere because she waited.

If and when this is all over we will hopefully know much more about what happened.

In my humble opinion

 

[Twistinginthewind]

Why is everybody ignoring the sentence under the title that says:

RCMP say review of surveillance footage found no evidence of vehicle activity

Good point.

In context, it still stands the 2 witnesses said, as submitted in court documents, that they heard and/or saw vehicle activity in the wee hours coming and going from the property.

AFAIK, RCMP hasn't said what surveillance footage was available around the property which they reviewed, in terms of:

-- Where camera(s) were located they obtained video footage from and how many covering what footprint or portion of the property Lilly and Jack disappeared from

-- Whether the camera(s) ran 24/7 or were motion-detection triggered like a game cam, so continuously recording all night? or on or off intermittently?

-- What the range of the camera(s) were and whether they were pointed towards the property, homes, roads, on the road or end of driveways, etc.

Also, if there were cameras known to residents in the neighborhood, they could have been avoided.

So IMO, what 2 neighbors told RCMP and what available footage they said they reviewed and found no evidence of vehicle activity are not mutually exclusive.

A vehicle could have been coming and going from the property as 2 of their neighbors said they witnessed, without available video footage recording it.

For example, hypothetically, if there were cameras in the neighborhood that were pointed:

-- Towards the main road so property owners would know when there was vehicle activity approaching from the main road

or

-- Towards the back of their property to alert them on wildlife activity

IMO, it's possible a vehicle was in use out of range of any cameras, and RCMP's statement, in context, doesn't contradict the witnesses statements, and simply could be a way for them to demonstrate they followed up and reviewed available footage.

IMO, like many other leads so far on Lilly and Jack's disappearance RCMP followed up on, they told the public there was no evidence found leading them to how, when, or where Lilly and Jack disappeared.

JMO

 

[MistyWaters]

Again there is literally nothing in my comment which suggests police should not question the sincerity of tipsters.

A sincere tip can also be sincerely mistaken. I note, there was nothing documented by LE to suggest these men came forward to lie about the non existent movements of a car.

We know Wong was interviewed on May 9th. We don’t know if he reported it May 9th. If he waited to report, we don’t know his reasons for waiting to report. Until we do, I’m not sure why this makes him less believable. The woman who came forward with a sighting of 2 kids approaching a woman in a gold car also waited to report. I also have no reason to believe she was less sincere because she waited.

If and when this is all over we will hopefully know much more about what happened.

In my humble opinion

‘Fresh’ tips that are made shortly after the fact leave less time to second guess oneself, was it this night or that night. Most of us remember last night better than a night a week ago. Secondly police shared an Alert asking for tips the day of the disappearance, why would anyone deliberately wait six days to pass along important information? That’s what I was referring to regarding the time lag of the tip.

That the RCMP were unable to verify the tip is due to lack of proof and evidence, nothing said of the tipsters believability. I don’t think you’re suggesting LE shouldn’t investigate or collaborate tips.
JMO