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

[MistyWaters]

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

IIRC eyewitness testimony the #1 cause of wrongful convictions.

In this case I wish the RCMP would’ve been successful in having the ITO documents sealed. So much drama…

Or maybe the RCMP could’ve done a better job by explaining what was about to be released in the documents. But their entire focus is investigating and hopefully solving the disappearance of Lilly and Jack, not managing public opinion.
JMO

 

[OneLove]

‘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

While the RCMP asked for tips (in an alert using what means?) the day of the disappearance, they also made known later that they were inundated with so many that it took significant time to process them. This was ongoing for quite some time.

Things we do not know and therefore should NOT assume:
1) we do not know WHEN each neighbor was made aware of the "alert"
2) we do not know HOW, if they became aware of the alert, they reported their knowledge. A call in phone line? Left in voice mail? Given to a live operator?
3) we do not know WHEN the RCMP became aware of these reports on the vehicle in the dead of night
4) we do not even know WHEN each neighbor became aware of Jack and Lily's disappearance
5) we do not know WHEN each neighbor became aware of the presence of more people on the property than was customary so as to even wonder what was going on (maybe they assumed a search and arrest for another reason that didnt surprise them)
6) we do not know IF these neighbors were gainfully employed at jobs or other pursuits that demanded their time and attention in ways that delayed their awareness of what was going on (were they elsewhere during the hours the search was happening?)
7) we do not know IF these neighbors discussed anything which each other or when if they eventually did

There are so many other things we DO NOT KNOW that I don't have the time or ability to key them all right now.

The point is "Do Not Assume ANYTHING". Investigators know this as it is considered blatantly and inescusably INCOMPETENT in their field of work. It is exactly how and why some cases never get solved.

They are also VERY very very deliberate about the way they state ANYTHING.

It is wise to NOT read more into anything released than exactly what is said and also pay attention to what is NOT being said.

 

[MistyWaters]

While the RCMP asked for tips (in an alert using what means?) the day of the disappearance, they also made known later that they were inundated with so many that it took significant time to process them. This was ongoing for quite some time.

Things we do not know and therefore should NOT assume:
1) we do not know WHEN each neighbor was made aware of the "alert"
2) we do not know HOW, if they became aware of the alert, they reported their knowledge. A call in phone line? Left in voice mail? Given to a live operator?
3) we do not know WHEN the RCMP became aware of these reports on the vehicle in the dead of night
4) we do not even know WHEN each neighbor became aware of Jack and Lily's disappearance
5) we do not know WHEN each neighbor became aware of the presence of more people on the property than was customary so as to even wonder what was going on (maybe they assumed a search and arrest for another reason that didnt surprise them)
6) we do not know IF these neighbors were gainfully employed at jobs or other pursuits that demanded their time and attention in ways that delayed their awareness of what was going on (were they elsewhere during the hours the search was happening?)
7) we do not know IF these neighbors discussed anything which each other or when if they eventually did

There are so many other things we DO NOT KNOW that I don't have the time or ability to key them all right now.

The point is "Do Not Assume ANYTHING". Investigators know this as it is considered blatantly and inescusably INCOMPETENT in their field of work. It is exactly how and why some cases never get solved.

They are also VERY very very deliberate about the way they state ANYTHING.

It is wise to NOT read more into anything released than exactly what is said and also pay attention to what is NOT being said.

This isn’t worth a huge debate. You have the right to believe whatever you choose. Just to say this case is a good example of how investigations evolve.

 

[Bodhi]

Thank you for this actual realistic and factual synopsis of the overall real day to day living situation of Jack and Lily's caregivers. As a former child protective social worker, I can say that *this* is the picture we look for when care of children goes amiss.

Multiple school employees confirmed that Jack and Lily's care had gone amiss.

The adults on which they depended were under multiple stresses and their situation was being monitored which most likely added greatly to that stress.

This does not necessarily mean that any of the adults on which Jack and Lily depended directly disappeared them by whatever means but Jack and Lily did disappear, overnight, apparently without a trace from either their house or their property while under their care and jurisdiction.

The immediate search done to find living "lost" children confirmed their scent in the yard but no living scent leaving their yard.

These are the *facts* as we know them to date.

Someone knows what happened to Jack and Lily. That is also a fact.

Thanks for sharing your insights as a social worker!

You end with "Someone knows what happened to Jack and Lily. That is also a fact." That's only if someone else was involved in their disappearance. If Lily and Jack went into the woods on their own while playing and died, no one living knows what happened. Until/unless living children or remains are recovered, it's conjecture.

Investigators stated in court documents there's no evidence of criminality in the disappearance. If the children died or were placed in the woods, let's hope their remains are recovered soon. Positive identification would end speculation about whether the children are alive, which has to be agony for those who loved Lily and Jack. Their parents will always be dealing with recriminations.

If the children's remains are discovered, the location and condition may indicate timing and cause of death for each. If the manner of death can be determined, investigators may be able to rule foul play in or out. If the children simply got lost playing in the woods, questions about how and why they went into the woods that morning are likely to remain unanswerable.

 

[Andreee]

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

And I did read in the media that one of the witnesses also saw car lights above the treeline as he lives in an elevated area.

 

[OneLove]

If Lily and Jack went into the woods on their own while playing and died, no one living knows what happened. Until/unless living children or remains are recovered, it's conjecture.

Yes, yes; 100% yes! Everything is conjecture, everything. Yet in professions like the elite investigators of the RCMP where logic and reason are of essential high value, investigators look at many factors that lead to *probabilities* and then follow those paths while not disregarding the lowest probabilities.

Conjecture made by the at arms length public can be pie in the sky off the wall wild cards with almost nil *probability* or they can be well-reasoned possibilities based on what is publicly known with a reasonable probability.

Jack and Lily wandering off into the woods might be true be a true and is more likely to be so IF every person involved to date is telling the truth, the complete truth, and nothing but the truth.

But we have seen the documentation of conflicting statements made, changing statements, and significant lapses of memory (neither DM nor Malehya could remember for investigators what they did just Wednesday when asked very early in the search for presumably live lost children.). Could there be innocent reasons to explain that? Sure, but very low probability they are true and none of them weigh favorably as to their parenting fitness level. Still, children in CPS are left in the care of ppl every day who are deemed low fitness but adequate to maintain the life of a child.


In addition, for the kids to have wandered off into the woods to be believable, the multiple search dogs needed to pick up at least SOME living scent trailing from their scent in the yard leading into the woods, even just at edge. There was none. Zero. Thats a harder truth to unwind than that the cadaver dogs did not pick up scent either.

For the kids to have wandered off into the woods to be believable, a believable explanation for why they did not respond to Daniel's calling for them so soon after they would have wandered off would need to be presented. In that VERY rough terrain they would not have gotten far in that amount of time. Ask the people who are there and have spoken to how the terrain is not in any way feasible for making distance and time, especially such young "just wandering" children. Lost kids respond to recognized and trusted voices and it is interesting to note there was only ONE known trusted voice in the woods from that whole family before strangers to the family showed up in response to the 911 call. Might a saturation of at least 3 or 4 known other voices made a difference in finding 2 children lost in the deep wooded underbrush? While it's believable that the kids might not respond to *unknown* voices (even though a parental report was how friendly and open they were to all strangers), probabilities are low that 2 bug bitten, scratched, hungry, thirsty, likely wet and muddy, likely cold lost children would NOT respond to the *one voice they trusted most in the world* (read that statement of DM's with a filter on, not off).

Investigators stated in court documents there's no evidence of criminality

Yes, their words exactly. Interesting, though, isnt it, that they ALSO keep stating this is an ongoing *investigation*. There are many elements to investigations and some of those take time to 'develop', mature, and process.There is often a great deal of strategy and also every single release is very carefully worded and timed for very specific reasons. The elite teams who operate these kinds of investigations are not witless, though they may *count on* some certain people reading more into their words than they actually have said and, again, for very specific reasons.

If the children's remains are discovered, the location and condition may indicate timing and cause of death for each. If the manner of death can be determined, investigators may be able to rule foul play in or out.

Yes, amen to this and though the highest hope is still finding them well and alive, if they are not, finding their remains may bring much needed answers to what happened to Jack and Lily.

 

[BCSleuth]

Yes, tips from the public are notoriously unreliable. The fact that two witnesses say the same thing does add a little credence, though.

As for surveillance video, we don't know where the cameras are. No video evidence of car activity does not necessarily mean no car activity and certainly does not discount there being some activity in and out of the family driveway. There's no cameras pointed at the driveway, is there? And looking at a map I can see an "offroad" road just some 170m from their driveway. That road goes way into the bushes for about 1300m and no cameras there either, probably. So somebody could have driven out of their driveway and into the bushes and back and it likely would not show up on any camera.

That is just one potential example. Again, we don't know where any cameras with recorded video might be. But a car could have potentially gone a lot of places depending. We just don't know.

 

[MistyWaters]

Yes, tips from the public are notoriously unreliable. The fact that two witnesses say the same thing does add a little credence, though.

As for surveillance video, we don't know where the cameras are. No video evidence of car activity does not necessarily mean no car activity and certainly does not discount there being some activity in and out of the family driveway. There's no cameras pointed at the driveway, is there? And looking at a map I can see an "offroad" road just some 170m from their driveway. That road goes way into the bushes for about 1300m and no cameras there either, probably. So somebody could have driven out of their driveway and into the bushes and back and it likely would not show up on any camera.

That is just one potential example. Again, we don't know where any cameras with recorded video might be. But a car could have potentially gone a lot of places depending. We just don't know.

But it was earlier reported the RCMP have obtained some video from the area. Do they have even more, we don’t know nor can we expect them to need to prove to us what there is and where it’s from. But we know they stated “review of surveillance footage found no evidence of vehicle activity” so that suggests their review of the surveillance footage did not corroborate the tip. They did not state that surveillance footage was unavailable nor that vehicle activity couldn’t be proven.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/woman-hands-rcmp-days-of-footage-leading-up-to-disappearance-of-n-s-children-1.7540886

“Scott said she posted in a private community Facebook group asking her neighbours if they, too, had been visited by the RCMP. She said two other people responded that they had also been approached for footage.

CBC News spoke to one neighbour who did not want to be named but confirmed they were asked by investigators for trail camera or security footage.

Scott said she was also asked to confirm information about her family's vehicles, in order to "rule out local traffic" on the footage.”

 

[303gmf]

<RSBM> unfortunately I think that's where this case has been since nearly the beginning, in the court of public opinion.

Aren’t most of them when it comes down to it?
We are the public and the opinion both

 

[OneLove]

‘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.

This is very true, and it is also entirely possible that any statements made "shortly after" are carefully manufactured cover-up fabrications. It can and does happen. Sometimes, the more elaborate the details, the more manufactured they are out of sheer terror and desperation. There's nothing quite like facing the rest of ones life in prison to lead one to make desperate moves.

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.

It seems to be an assumption that anyone waited deliberately 6 days to pass along vital information. Do we know when they even become aware of the alert?. There are plenty of logical reasons why they may not have even known what was going on yet. Have those been ruled out or discussed in any way? Secondly, was there a time lag between when they first reported these tips to what may have been a phone in line taking messages then being screened one by one? When were they then conveyed to the appropriate persons and THEN how long did it take for those persons to actually become aware of them and then interview the tipsters live in person? Were they interviewed at their homes or did they have to schedule appointments (around their work obligations?) and then go to a place of interrogation? These things that get passed through a chain can take time and they had stated they were inundated with many tips. It could well have taken 6 days to cycle through that process without it being a "deliberate delay" at all. And then again, maybe not. I don't *think* we have the information we need to know this answer but if those questions have been addressed, I'd sure like to know the answers.

DM seemed to imply that at least one of the neighbors was trying to somewhat "get back" at him for some unknown reason. It would be interesting to know what caused the presumably "bad blood" between them if this is even true.

If the neighbors claim to know of DM's in-the-night habits beyone a one-off night of unusual driving back and forth , I'm sure the RCMP are also interested in any other habits they may have noted.

I've always been lead to believe the RCMP are top flight, well trained, organized, and know exactly what they are doing. Can this be trusted to be true?

 

[Sjöberg]

For the kids to have wandered off into the woods to be believable, a believable explanation for why they did not respond to Daniel's calling for them so soon after they would have wandered off would need to be presented.

This is an interesting aspect to me. I am one of the people who has not dismissed the theory that the kids did walk off (but I'm also not dismissing possible murder nor even abduction either), probably mostly because I am not in the least supicious about the bodies not being found yet - I've shared that anecdote previously, but an adult relative of mine committed suicide in an area with far less untamed wilderness with no large predators and it still took 8 years to find his body, despite the general area being known and heavy police involvement.

I can think of a few reasons why the kids might have not responded to Daniels calls:
* afraid of getting into trouble - IMO, that's a huge probability with kids this young, especially in a somewhat chaotic household, "not being seen before they've calmed down" is a concept kids learn quickly
* not wanting to respond - if they were, say, "running away" or going to do something forbidden and not yet in immediate distress at all, they might have gotten farther away on purpose
* not able to respond - such as drowning in water, having suffered a fall down one of the old mine shafts or similar (depending on the closeness of these objects)
* not able to hear him - the woods block sound quite well and I have not ruled out that the timeline is a bit fuzzy regarding how soon the search started and when it reached the point of yelling in the woods

I can see people side-eyeing the family, but I feel it is too easy to judge someone of low socio-economic background living in a remote trailer with 3 kids from our mostly comfortable middle-class lives. Sure, the family has some issues. However, this also increases the probability of accidents, kids running away and even abduction.

I have not made up my mind about this case, but the lack of a crime scene and the existance of Lillys-boot-sized boot print in the search area is making me cautious against a witch hunt for now. There are no dingoes in Canada, but sometimes drastic outcomes (two kids dead) don't need a drastic reason to happen (lack of supervision and Canadian wilderness).

 

[Serononin]

I have to wonder how much info could have been gleaned from the cellular data. If I remember right, the cellular coverage was sketchy in the area. This is, I believe, the reason MBM used the texting app - it gave her more reliable texting using WiFi. I assume their WiFi was stronger than their cell coverage. This is sometimes the case for me, I live rurally, and there are cell phone dead areas on my property.

As for the camera data, it would be interesting to also know the reliability of the cameras sourced by LE. On my property, I have motion activated solar cameras, with so-so reliability. I also have a motion activated wifi camera which is about 75% accurate. Sometimes it can just miss movement, not sure why.

I would love to be a fly on the wall. And observe the investigative process, piecing together the data from various cameras in the area, and the timelines. I am so hopeful this case is solved, and the elements of the case we have discussed will be made clear.

IMO

According to the documents, it seems that both DM and MBM had location tracking on in Google Maps. I'm not sure exactly how coverage would affect that service, but it certainly sounds like there was a decent amount of data, because the RCMP were able to use it to corroborate what the parents said about where they went on the Wednesday and Thursday before the children disappeared

 

[Curiousraccoon]

Do we have a theory for why certain timestamps of the morning the kids went missing are redacted in the documents (I believe it may have been the time MBM saw Lily popping into the room, the time they started search and / or called the police)?

 

[TMich6811]

Do we have a theory for why certain timestamps of the morning the kids went missing are redacted in the documents (I believe it may have been the time MBM saw Lily popping into the room, the time they started search and / or called the police)?

The timestamps for the missed call to M’s mom also.

 

[Mauig’ma]

According to the documents, it seems that both DM and MBM had location tracking on in Google Maps. I'm not sure exactly how coverage would affect that service, but it certainly sounds like there was a decent amount of data, because the RCMP were able to use it to corroborate what the parents said about where they went on the Wednesday and Thursday before the children disappeared

I agree with what’s said but ppl who commit crimes are smart enough to know not to take their phones with them imo

 

[Sarahlou]

I agree with what’s said but ppl who commit crimes are smart enough to know not to take their phones with them imo

I have to disagree. Chris Watts is a good example of an extremely dumb criminal. He had his phone on him when he disposed of the bodies.

 

[Dreamcherry]

I agree with what’s said but ppl who commit crimes are smart enough to know not to take their phones with them imo

Are they? Allow me to introduce you to Bryan Kohberger lol.

 

[Mauig’ma]

I have to disagree. Chris Watts is a good example of an extremely dumb criminal. He had his phone on him when he disposed of the bodies.

You’re right. There are dumb criminals.

 

[Twistinginthewind]

Do we have a theory for why certain timestamps of the morning the kids went missing are redacted in the documents (I believe it may have been the time MBM saw Lily popping into the room, the time they started search and / or called the police)?

I don't have a theory on why timestamps of events/calls, etc. the morning their mother called 911 to report Lilly and Jack were missing were redacted, and IIRC, upthread it may have been wondered about, perhaps in and amongst other redactions and theories on reasons.

I would hazard a guess, though, that the exact times during the key hours/minutes were redacted to protect the privacy of their family members and integrity of the investigation.

For example, if it was public knowledge exactly when so-and-so said they did or noticed thus-and-such, and there were any gaps or longer intervals or inconsistencies in the timing all "making sense / seeming normal" to some people but the opposite to others....

That level of specificity (all times publicly stated) could have caused even more speculation that presumably would not help LE find Lilly and Jack, because no one else but their family members & LE were there that morning.

So potentially no benefit from the outside/public would be garnered by LE saying X minutes went by between this and that, and instead they asked anyone with possible info on their disappearance, whereabouts, any sightings within a broad window of time (day before to the day of) to contact them.

JMO

 

[MistyWaters]

This is very true, and it is also entirely possible that any statements made "shortly after" are carefully manufactured cover-up fabrications. It can and does happen. Sometimes, the more elaborate the details, the more manufactured they are out of sheer terror and desperation. There's nothing quite like facing the rest of ones life in prison to lead one to make desperate moves.


DM seemed to imply that at least one of the neighbors was trying to somewhat "get back" at him for some unknown reason. It would be interesting to know what caused the presumably "bad blood" between them if this is even true.

If the neighbors claim to know of DM's in-the-night habits beyone a one-off night of unusual driving back and forth , I'm sure the RCMP are also interested in any other habits they may have noted.

I've always been lead to believe the RCMP are top flight, well trained, organized, and know exactly what they are doing. Can this be trusted to be true?

If we can’t be confident that the RCMP are well trained, organized and know exactly what they’re doing, then there’s no hope for a civilized society. I happen to think policing in Canada deserves high marks.

The problem arises if members of the public expect the RCMP’s work to support the status quo. I don’t know how many true crime cases you’ve followed but SM and popular opinion are definitely not always right. It’s interesting to observe while avoiding judgement on that which we don’t know, in this missing persons case what happened to Lilly and Jack.
JMO