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

[Greenestdays]

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:

7) we do not know IF these neighbors discussed anything which each other or when if they eventually did

From the same article:

“[Justin Smith] later spoke with Brad Wong who informed him Daniel's vehicle came and went five or six times that night. Wong said the car Smith heard was Daniel.”

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

 

[Slebby]

I believe RCMP are smart enough to not care what we in the public know or think of their investigation. I feel strongly their focus is on the job at hand and when they give statements those statements are carefully and purposefully worded.

I agree. In the Samuel Bird press conference (Edmonton case, 14 year old boy whose remains were recovered last week, arrest made) the lead detective said the public perception they were doing nothing was helpful to their investigation.

IMO

 

[Megnut]

True it’s possible the cameras didn’t record it but don’t you think the RCMP are smart enough to be aware of the type of device that recorded the surveillance footage that they reviewed? “NO evidence” is quite a precise statement as opposed to any ‘vehicle activity being undetermined’.

I’m curious, general question, why is the RCMPs review of surveillance footage considered to possibly have been unsatisfactory without knowing any of the details about what was reviewed?

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."

For me, it's from following other threads through to verdicts. During the investigation phase things are often not a they seem. There's a certain LE speak that I've come to recognize, make not of.

The way I hear it: fact: LE has reviewed video and in it have seen no vehicle activity. fact: as yet, the use of a car is not an element of the case (the case remains a missing persons case where the children vanished). Same reason there's no amber alert, it's not a FACT they are taken away by car. We can be assured though that LE is investigating that as a theory of the case.

Apparently LE has no video of a vehicle to corroborate there being one, but this doesn't mean there wasn't or couldn't have been one. Important video could have been recorded over, could have failed to record, could have focused on one road but not another, etc, etc.

I'd be really curious to know if the neighbors' cameras captured the stepfather morning drive, the one he took to go in search of the children. To corroborate it. To show range of coverage.

I am reminded of PatrickFrazee, serving LWOP +156 years for bludgeoning his fiancee with a baseball bat. A review of available footage showed him, her, their baby entering her townhouse and later only him and the baby leaving. No footage of him removing her body which he surely did. Video glitch. She was in fact removed. And there was no footage of removal. Two true statements.

Despite a leak of footage, a vehicle may well be in play here.

I wait and I watch.

JMO

 

[BCSleuth]

[...]

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

[...]

No need to shout. This seems to be a common logical error on this board. If the RCMP say they found no evidence of something that is not the same thing as saying they found evidence against that something.

As I stated earlier, if there was no camera on the family driveway, and a car drove out of the driveway and into the bushes on the rough road that is just a little ways down the street (170m), how would the RCMP find surveillance footage of that vehicle activity? They wouldn't. So review of surveillance footage and finding no evidence of vehicle activity doesn't mean there wasn't any.

And I'm fairly certain if there was a camera on the driveway we would have heard about it. It would have been massively useful, of course.

 

[MistyWaters]

<rsbm>
Did anyone said the RCMP’s review of surveillance footage has been unsatisfactory??

What some are saying is it’s possible there was a car as reported by 2 witnesses but was not captured by any cameras. Yes, a car could have been coming and going, no, there was no footage of said movement. That is what some of us believe to be possible.

IMHO

If the RCMP claim of no vehicle activity found that night is being questioned, what other reason could be attributed but that their review was unsatisfactory in some manner?

 

[MistyWaters]

No need to shout. This seems to be a common logical error on this board. If the RCMP say they found no evidence of something that is not the same thing as saying they found evidence against that something.

As I stated earlier, if there was no camera on the family driveway, and a car drove out of the driveway and into the bushes on the rough road that is just a little ways down the street (170m), how would the RCMP find surveillance footage of that vehicle activity? They wouldn't. So review of surveillance footage and finding no evidence of vehicle activity doesn't mean there wasn't any.

And I'm fairly certain if there was a camera on the driveway we would have heard about it. It would have been massively useful, of course.

I’m not shouting, that was a copy and paste from the link. No idea why the font copied so large. Maybe CBC wanted people to notice?

 

[Megnut]

If the RCMP claim of no vehicle activity found that night is being questioned, what other reason could be attributed but that their review was unsatisfactory in some manner?

The claim isn't being questioned. IMO the words are being parsed.

I'm not alone in thinking the words are spoken carefully.

No video of vehicle is not the same as no vehicle.

Which they were careful IMO not to say.

They said a review of the footage showed no vehicle activity. That is likely 100% true.

Consider, for argument's sake, that both neighbors with cameras live to the right of a home. No neighbors with cameras live to the left. A car comes and go from the center home, always leaving toward the left, where there are no cameras. The neighbors on the right could well have heard that car, even seen headlights, but have no useful footage. Car didn't go that way. And LE would be truthful in saying a review of footage revealed no vehicle activity. So far, everyone truthful.

Meanwhile, LE could have all kinds of evidence that a vehicle turned left... abd have really good reasons for keeping thst to themselves.

JMO

 

[OneLove]

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

Yes; my point exactly! The RCMP know what they are doing. I'm puzzled as to why so much doubting what they say *exactly* and what they don't say *exactly*.

So many people read into their words what they want to believe even if not said and likewise leave out what they have said exactly. Everything and all possibilities are on the table... until they are not.

 

[BCSleuth]

If the RCMP claim of no vehicle activity found that night is being questioned, what other reason could be attributed but that their review was unsatisfactory in some manner?

The RCMP did not claim there was no vehicle activity that night.

What they said is that they have no surveillance video to support the claim. That doesn't mean the claim is untrue.

If a vehicle exited the driveway and entered the rough road 170m down the street, how would they have surveillance video to support that? How would the absence of surveillance video prove it didn't happen?

 

[su5ie]

I'm reluctant to write this but I will .

Statements released so far seem to indicate that the area in which the kids are speculated to have wandered wasn't searched good enough

If we have the rcmp saying no evidence of abduction, no evidence of the children being dead and no evidence of a vehicle coming and going and no evidence that points to this being a criminal investigation. And none of the reviewed information has turned up anything

What are we left with , that the kids are unfounded in the woods either alive or dead ?

If we are to believe all information released is fact and based on these statements and documents that after all the investigating , all arrows point to the kids being in the immediate vicinity. Why are they not scouring the area daily until the kids are found ?

Because the truth of the matter is the evidence thus far has only shown LE that there is nothing of value in the evidence so far . It doesn't mean that something of value won't be found in the evidence in the future .

In a investigation as we all know from other cases , important stuff can get lost , misplaced ,overlooked due to human error . Witnesses for whatever reason hold back .

So I would not confine my opinion to a box on whether or not a vehicle did indeed come and go from the property. I like to remain open minded when it comes to what LE releases and remember actions speak louder than words .

If LE are no longer investigating along the lines of criminality , abduction or have closed the lid on any possibility other than a wandering. And are satisfied that all the leads are investigated to no fruitfulness and the review of everything up until this point can now be filed away and taken as fact . why are they still asking for tips ? Why do they still want footage from the surrounding area ? Because in my opinion they are just as confused and stumped as the rest of us , and are possibly no further along since week one in knowing what happened

JMHO

 

[Sarahlou]

I'm reluctant to write this but I will .

Statements released so far seem to indicate that the area in which the kids are speculated to have wandered wasn't searched good enough

If we have the rcmp saying no evidence of abduction, no evidence of the children being dead and no evidence of a vehicle coming and going and no evidence that points to this being a criminal investigation. And none of the reviewed information has turned up anything

What are we left with , that the kids are unfounded in the woods either alive or dead ?

If we are to believe all information released is fact and based on these statements and documents that after all the investigating , all arrows point to the kids being in the immediate vicinity. Why are they not scouring the area daily until the kids are found ?

Because the truth of the matter is the evidence thus far has only shown LE that there is nothing of value in the evidence so far . It doesn't mean that something of value won't be found in the evidence in the future .

In a investigation as we all know from other cases , important stuff can get lost , misplaced ,overlooked due to human error . Witnesses for whatever reason hold back .

So I would not confine my opinion to a box on whether or not a vehicle did indeed come and go from the property. I like to remain open minded when it comes to what LE releases and remember actions speak louder than words .

If LE are no longer investigating along the lines of criminality , abduction or have closed the lid on any possibility other than a wandering. And are satisfied that all the leads are investigated to no fruitfulness and the review of everything up until this point can now be filed away and taken as fact . why are they still asking for tips ? Why do they still want footage from the surrounding area ? Because in my opinion they are just as confused and stumped as the rest of us , and are possibly no further along since week one in knowing what happened

JMHO

They say it's not criminal but very recently it was said 'RCMP are still considering all possibilities, but would not discuss their investigative theories'

Confusing.

 

[MistyWaters]

So what if, considering the RCMP asked for several days of surveillance footage, upon review they noted no vehicle activity during the early hours of May 2nd but indeed there was during another night, say April 28th. It’s important to remember the only reason we even know about the vehicle is because the RCMP recorded the details in an ITO requesting a subpoena to be approved in order to investigate the information.

So the RCMP question the tipsters asking if there’s a chance they got the date wrong and thinking about it they admit yes they did. The RCMP is not going to issue a public statement to embarrass the tipsters over being wrong, thus directing unnecessary attention to their motives. What we’ll see is a brief statement as was given.

—- My theory to explain what occurred.

 

[musicaljoke]

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.

It makes me wonder though, if there was animosity between the neighbours and DM. Did the neighbours immediately assume that any noisy vehicle must be DM? They didn't see the vehicle. Did they talk about it together and suddenly both remembered the noisy vehicle? DM seemed to imply in one of his comments that the police should be checking out someone nearby whom he suspected. Was it one of these neighbours? I don't know, but it seems to me that there could be a bad relationship there. The noisy vehicle and lights at night might possibly be an attempt to cast shade on DM.

 

[Colleen Donnelly]

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

Questions 1,4 and 5 somewhat answers? > Only my opinion of course, but I would think that more than likely every house in that rural community knew those babes were missing within several hours. If not several, then within 24 hours. The RCMP would most definitely have been door knocking ( and no answer means a calling card left and for sure a follow up ), there were helicopters in the air, ground searchers literally crawling through some areas, atv’s, dogs, family, friends, folks from the community, all the vehicles that would have been lined up, down and around Gairloch Road, Lansdowne Station Road as well as Lansdowne Road, news crews, drones, Facebook, Insta, Tiktok, what else? …the neighbors were fully aware.

the *one voice they trusted most in the world* (read that statement of DM's with a filter on, not off).

Wow, what an arrogant statement! When and where did he say that??

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.

Your mistaken. Janie’s complete interview where she talks about going into the woods looking for the kids starts approximately at the 2:30 mark. Also, I noticed this video has been edited since the first time I watched it. There are a few different spliced in clips I hadn’t noticed before. Grrr

 

[MistyWaters]

They say it's not criminal but very recently it was said 'RCMP are still considering all possibilities, but would not discuss their investigative theories'

Confusing.

Yes I agree it is confusing. Major Crimes Staff Sgt. Rob McCamon stated more than once this case is being investigated under the Missing Persons Act. What’s the difference between that and the Criminal Investigations Act other than evidence of criminality activity, I don’t know. Maybe that’s the answer.

 

[Colleen Donnelly]

DM seemed to imply in one of his comments that the police should be checking out someone nearby whom he suspected.

I'm not sure if he suspected the neighbour of any wrongdoing concerning Lilly and Jack. I think he was just throwing shade.

 

[Megnut]

I'm reluctant to write this but I will .

Statements released so far seem to indicate that the area in which the kids are speculated to have wandered wasn't searched good enough

If we have the rcmp saying no evidence of abduction, no evidence of the children being dead and no evidence of a vehicle coming and going and no evidence that points to this being a criminal investigation. And none of the reviewed information has turned up anything

What are we left with , that the kids are unfounded in the woods either alive or dead ?

If we are to believe all information released is fact and based on these statements and documents that after all the investigating , all arrows point to the kids being in the immediate vicinity. Why are they not scouring the area daily until the kids are found ?

Because the truth of the matter is the evidence thus far has only shown LE that there is nothing of value in the evidence so far . It doesn't mean that something of value won't be found in the evidence in the future .

In a investigation as we all know from other cases , important stuff can get lost , misplaced ,overlooked due to human error . Witnesses for whatever reason hold back .

So I would not confine my opinion to a box on whether or not a vehicle did indeed come and go from the property. I like to remain open minded when it comes to what LE releases and remember actions speak louder than words .

If LE are no longer investigating along the lines of criminality , abduction or have closed the lid on any possibility other than a wandering. And are satisfied that all the leads are investigated to no fruitfulness and the review of everything up until this point can now be filed away and taken as fact . why are they still asking for tips ? Why do they still want footage from the surrounding area ? Because in my opinion they are just as confused and stumped as the rest of us , and are possibly no further along since week one in knowing what happened

JMHO

I was with you right up until the last paragraph. IMO LE is absolutely investigating this under a theory of foul play. As well they should. All angles.

In the GannonS case, LE knew the missing child had sustained unsurvivable injuries in the home, they just couldn't find him. Once his body was recovered, an arrest was made. At trial, we learned about the extensive criminal investigation. But the whole time leading up to the arrest, LE maintained publicly that it was a missing person case, as if they expected to recover a lost, living child.

LE sadly isn't just looking for these precious children, they are investigating their disappearance methodically in order not to jeopardize a future prosecution should foul play be in play.

They have to protect against rush to judgment, tunnel vision, unfair prejudice, etc, etc.

Foul play might include negligence, violence, conspiracy, etc, etc.

Following threads on WS from incident through resolution/sentencing puts us in a unique spot. On this side, we're trying to guess what the evidence is, guess what LE knows. If there is foul play and an arrest, we'll scour arrest affidavit and search warrants for clues and start a new round of guessing for the parts we still don't know.

And then if there's a trial, we'll get answers which we can then compare back to what we knew or thought we knew back at the early stages.

I don't think LE is stumped. I just don't know entirely which way this will fall.

JMO

 

[su5ie]

So what if, considering the RCMP asked for several days of surveillance footage, upon review they noted no vehicle activity during the early hours of May 2nd but indeed there was during another night, say April 28th. It’s important to remember the only reason we even know about the vehicle is because the RCMP recorded the details in an ITO requesting a subpoena to be approved in order to investigate the information.

So the RCMP question the tipsters asking if there’s a chance they got the date wrong and thinking about it they admit yes they did. The RCMP is not going to issue a public statement to embarrass the tipsters over being wrong, thus directing unnecessary attention to their motives. What we’ll see is a brief statement as was given.

—- My theory to explain what occurred.

But that's the thing they are not going to start explaining and they are not going to provide a blow by blow account of what happened after , during or before the release of the documents.

What we see is a brief few words , that in that exact moment, the surveillance they were in possession of at that time and of the part of road shown showed no vehicle. What they did not state is that they have a comprehensive and complete view of all of the location and they are 100% without a shadow of a doubt sure no vehicle was coming and going that night

One thing I want to add is cctv is not foolproof and a camera only sees where it is pointed and if I'm familiar with where a camera is pointed , I also know how to avoid it if I'm seeking to

 

[Mauig’ma]

For me, it's from following other threads through to verdicts. During the investigation phase things are often not a they seem. There's a certain LE speak that I've come to recognize, make not of.

The way I hear it: fact: LE has reviewed video and in it have seen no vehicle activity. fact: as yet, the use of a car is not an element of the case (the case remains a missing persons case where the children vanished). Same reason there's no amber alert, it's not a FACT they are taken away by car. We can be assured though that LE is investigating that as a theory of the case.

Apparently LE has no video of a vehicle to corroborate there being one, but this doesn't mean there wasn't or couldn't have been one. Important video could have been recorded over, could have failed to record, could have focused on one road but not another, etc, etc.

I'd be really curious to know if the neighbors' cameras captured the stepfather morning drive, the one he took to go in search of the children. To corroborate it. To show range of coverage.

I am reminded of PatrickFrazee, serving LWOP +156 years for bludgeoning his fiancee with a baseball bat. A review of available footage showed him, her, their baby entering her townhouse and later only him and the baby leaving. No footage of him removing her body which he surely did. Video glitch. She was in fact removed. And there was no footage of removal. Two true statements.

Despite a leak of footage, a vehicle may well be in play here.

I wait and I watch.

JMO

Thank you for this. This is a great case reminder

 

[OneLove]

As Serononin so kindly pointed out, all one has to do to stop Google maps from tracking is turn on battery saver mode. Then turn it back off whenever you want. That sure makes it super easy to look like you've been tracked everywhere when you have NOT been tracked for a very specific chosen time period.

One who very carefully crafts their words so as to fool people who easily jump to false conclusions might accurately say "there was no evidence found that XYZ was not at home sleeping during the night". See how easy that is? That is a far afield from saying "there is evidence that XYZ was home sleeping during the night".

Words do not say what they do not say. But some folks will "read into them" what their hearts most want to believe.

Also, looking back, some folks had a very difficult time comprehending the concept of double negatives. Some gave up in exasperation. It seems somewhat similar watching some understand this and others not able to.