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

[su5ie]

yes, MBM first claimed to have put the children down and gone to bed herself around 9. She later revised that time when shown that the family did not get home from their errands until around 10pm. He can't recall what time he went to bed but stated it was "fairly early"

See this confuses me if the kids were put to bed at around 10pm ( in document mbm states 9pm first then revised this to 10pm in second statement) mbm then puts meadow to sleep ? And then goes to sleep herself. She states Daniel didn't come to bed with her and he states he checked on the kids before heading to bed himself . Does anyone remember what time he stated he checked on the kids ?

Now ' fairly early " can mean different times to different people but for me it means between 10 pm and 11pm . But for some it just means before midnight Does he mean these hours or could his fairly early be earlier than usual, which could be any time of the night in reality .

If I Normally go to bed between 2am and 4am . Midnight is fairly early .

It's too vague imo . Doesn't everyone check there phone or glance at a clock going to bed . I also noticed DM likes to wear a nice big watch on his wrist , did he not glance at this ???

I think the rcmp and journalists are leaving their statements too open ended and too open to an individuals interpretation. In an investigation where information has been released in a trickle so I feel they need to make clear concise statements so as not to leave room for wildfire speculating and double ended meanings

JMHO


DM and MBM didn't get home till late on Wednesday or was it Thursday ? And was it the Thursday that they spent the evening at home after grocery shopping.? Which statement is true .

 

[TMich6811]

See this confuses me if the kids were put to bed at around 10pm ( in document mbm states 9pm first then revised this to 10pm in second statement) mbm then puts meadow to sleep ? And then goes to sleep herself. She states Daniel didn't come to bed with her and he states he checked on the kids before heading to bed himself . Does anyone remember what time he stated he checked on the kids ?

Now ' fairly early " can mean different times to different people but for me it means between 10 pm and 11pm . But for some it just means before midnight Does he mean these hours or could his fairly early be earlier than usual, which could be any time of the night in reality .

If I Normally go to bed between 2am and 4am . Midnight is fairly early .

It's too vague imo . Doesn't everyone check there phone or glance at a clock going to bed . I also noticed DM likes to wear a nice big watch on his wrist , did he not glance at this ???

I think the rcmp and journalists are leaving their statements too open ended and too open to an individuals interpretation. In an investigation where information has been released in a trickle so I feel they need to make clear concise statements so as not to leave room for wildfire speculating and double ended meanings

JMHO

Agreed and I feel many of the report statements contradict things he has said.

I also think in the statements he attempted to throw her under (like saying they should see when she called her mom because her mom got there awful fast) and her (saying she didn’t know what he did all night).

 

[su5ie]

Agreed and I feel many of the report statements contradict things he has said.

I also think in the statements he attempted to throw her under (like saying they should see when she called her mom because her mom got there awful fast) and her (saying she didn’t know what he did all night).

Yes so although they have not thus far thrown each other on to the railway tracks in front of a moving train . They have attempted to create doubt about the other from the start . This was never a family United and putting difference aside and focus on finding the kids . Imo they both seemed to create a situation that deflected the spotlight away from the kids onto themselves fairly swiftly. Whether that was intentional or not is a conundrum.

There is a strategy taken by some when in the midst of suspicion or in the case where two people commit a crime . Create a diversion to keep people focused on that . And to have no contact with the other so as not to have unilateral stories because stories that differ are more believable as naturally 2 people will not word their shared expierence and explanation the exact same unless they create it to keep a story straight and the only way they can create it is to be in contact with one another . Just a thought I had when mbm left so quickly and prehaps one of the reasons the rcmp may have "advised " mbm to leave

 

[Slebby]

In the Oct 8th Globe and Mail article covering the results of cadaver dog searches, DM said he thinks J and L are alive, taken by someone known to MBM, and that he may know the person that has the kids.

RCMP say no human remains found after cadaver dog search for missing Nova Scotia children

Dogs and their handlers covered 40 kilometres in Lansdowne – including the trailer and property where the children went missing

www.theglobeandmail.com

Yes, sorry, paywalled. It seems the most fulsome reporting comes from the Globe and Mail, in my opinion.

What do you make of DM making a statement like this 5 months after the children disappeared?

IMHO

 

[tlcya]

In the Oct 8th Globe and Mail article covering the results of cadaver dog searches, DM said he thinks J and L are alive, taken by someone known to MBM, and that he may know the person that has the kids.

RCMP say no human remains found after cadaver dog search for missing Nova Scotia children

Dogs and their handlers covered 40 kilometres in Lansdowne – including the trailer and property where the children went missing

www.theglobeandmail.com

Yes, sorry, paywalled. It seems the most fulsome reporting comes from the Globe and Mail, in my opinion.

What do you make of DM making a statement like this 5 months after the children disappeared?

IMHO

I feel it is just more finger pointing in any direction but his own, something we've seen from him since day one. I find it defensive and self serving. JMO

 

[su5ie]

I feel it is just more finger pointing in any direction but his own, something we've seen from him since day one. I find it defensive and self serving. JMO

I find it to be a deflecting strategy or a way of venting the anger and hurt at mbm he feels for her leaving him and their relationship. A childish exercise in gaining revenge for one's precieved slight imo

 

[seasideForest]

https://archive.ph/ktf5s

I recommend everybody reads this, even people who've been following the case since the beginning. Some of the quibbling questions that have been going on in this thread like about DM's car and which car when etc etc are answered in here. It's a good review of facts.

MOO

 

[OneLove]

I feel it is just more finger pointing in any direction but his own, something we've seen from him since day one. I find it defensive and self serving. JMO

Yes, his "look, squirrel" finger pointing very early on came off as a desperate attempt to control.

As time passed and he said more and more, his statements were cues of possible domestic violence beginning with a general attitude of denigrating Malehya, pulverizing her self confidence, then acting as lord and rescuer for/over her. The dynamic looked familiar to a number of domestic violence victims from my past work. He seemed to usurp her parental authority with her own kids and establish himself as king. Were there justifiable reasons or is this just a personality defect?

We have read of her paternal g'mother saying he HELD HER DOWN. Why? Was she trying to leave when he'd hold her down? Or were there other reasons. I'd like to hear DM's version of this. And he was also reported to TAKE HER PHONE. Again, why? Was she calling for help, 911? Or was he "saving her" from a bad phone addiction in his mind's eye? Did he hit her and Malehya couldn't bring herself to tell anyone that?

When she first came to be with DM, she had some means of her own. That changed and she had no resources close to the end and their dynamic may have changed along with it. .

Bless her maternal Grandmother ~♡~ for helping her out with a car, a primary necessity for changing one's predicament. But that had not had time to cycle through before disaster struck. Did DM sense the end was near?

Had Malehya's going to bed "early" and DM staying up until we don't even know when become a routine, possibly indicating both relationship dysfunction and maybe a habit of nightime stimulants (housecleaning, car work, fence building, and such at night when he was not even working days)? His edgy pushy angry manner of addressing things may be cues. The "I'm the best, I know best, I'm faster than a helicopter, ppl should/shouldn't be doing xyz, everyone should listen and take direction from ME ME ME, is a piece of the puzzle. I can't fathom what he was like alone in a one on one relationship, especially with children who weren't even his own and with no money for food, firewood, gas, and apparently winter coats for the kids.

One thing really jumped out for me: when daybreak came and the kids had vanished, he first made comments akin to being Malehya's protector. Was that by design and strategic for him in order to influence Malehya to stick with him?

Was she drugged in some way to make her drowsy enough to sleep soundly and to be sluggish on waking in the morning?

We're the kids likewise drugged, whether to put them to sleep or to render them unaware of their final fate?

Terrible thoughts to ponder. Sadly, in social service work and then in justice work I've seen more than plenty of terrible things. But we always always followed the clues and then looked for evidence.

The link MistyWaters posted is a worthy read and I think very well written, kudos to the author and thanks to MistyWaters for posting it. If you read it, keep in mind, always, to never assume words mean something they do NOT SAY. No evidence is not equivalent to "ruled out". Unsubstantiated is not ruled out.

The RCMP has not "disputed" any theories or witness reports, they just say they have not substantiated nor found evidence of (yet). That salacious headline was sooo badly written that the author would have been fired in the days of excellent journalism and my granddaughter's Jr high's newspaper staff would have been docked and corrected for such.

 

[MistyWaters]

<snipped>

The link MistyWaters posted is a worthy read and I think very well written, kudos to the author and thanks to MistyWaters for posting it. If you read it, keep in mind, always, to never assume words mean something they do NOT SAY. No evidence is not equivalent to "ruled out". Unsubstantiated is not ruled out.

The RCMP has not "disputed" any theories or witness reports, they just say they have not substantiated nor found evidence of (yet). That salacious headline was sooo badly written that the author would have been fired in the days of excellent journalism and my granddaughter's Jr high's newspaper staff would have been docked and corrected for such.

Dare I ask what in that August 8th G&M news article are you referring to that was or wasn't ’ruled out’?

 

[su5ie]

I recommend everybody reads this, even people who've been following the case since the beginning. Some of the quibbling questions that have been going on in this thread like about DM's car and which car when etc etc are answered in here. It's a good review of facts.

MOO

Thanks for posting, so from the article we see DMs vehicle wasn't drivable . We read DM and MBM woke at 9.40 am to realise they couldn't hear the kids so began searching . We know from the documents/ previous articles the rcmp were called at 10.01 am and they arrived at the property at about 10.31 am . What it does not say is what time the searchers began searching the surrounding woods and greater areas around garlioch Road. We also don't know what time mbm thinks the kids went missing at as its redacted. This is crucial in knowing how much of a head start the kids had . We only have a time given by janie of her call with her brother 8.48 am and hearing the kids shortly after that .


So where the kids missing three quarters of an hour before mbm noticed them gone or was it longer and janie is mistaken on hearing the kids after the call ??

We read in the article jack had a black eye in September and in January and lilly had one from the Wednesday the 30th of April, this is also the day the baby support payment stopped as Daniel hadn't filed his taxes on time and this date was the deadline . It was also the day mbm washed all of lilly and jacks clothes in her grandmothers and why the kids slept in clothing worn on the Thursday night to bed as mbm had not unpacked them . A lot happening on Wednesday the 30th ,a lot to not easily forget but yet both mbm and DM were confused over the happenings of this day According to the documents


We also learn there is still old mineshafts to be searched.

We also learn Daniel used a profile on fb to communicate / speak to the G&M that was also used to add cryptic messages in a discussion group on fb about the missing children. What fire was he hoping to quell or start with that ?

We also learn that the rcmp have released conflicting statement regarding their believe in the children being alive or dead . In this article they state they believe the children are no longer alive but in a later article/ interview they state they have no evidence to believe the children are dead . So is this a pattern they seem to engage in to throw a cat amongst the pigeons ? Or are different investigations officers just giving their own opinions? And if they are doing either what are they hoping to achieve from the listening public ? To quell the rumours or to ignite them in the hope of flushing out or relax a potential perp or entice a witness to come forward?

 

[Bigditch]

I recommend everybody reads this, even people who've been following the case since the beginning. Some of the quibbling questions that have been going on in this thread like about DM's car and which car when etc etc are answered in here. It's a good review of facts.

MOO

Reread the article and have to say there isn't anything written in it I haven't read before. The article has been upcycled.

Biased reporting, almost manipulative in tone. With language that borders on a type of false narrative that includes ambiguous turn of phrase and wobbly sources, such as YouTube and facebook.

The articles as it stands is crap and undemocratic.

 

[MistyWaters]

Thanks for posting, so from the article we see DMs vehicle wasn't drivable . We read DM and MBM woke at 9.40 am to realise they couldn't hear the kids so began searching . We know from the documents/ previous articles the rcmp were called at 10.01 am and they arrived at the property at about 10.31 am . What it does not say is what time the searchers began searching the surrounding woods and greater areas around garlioch Road. We also don't know what time mbm thinks the kids went missing at as its redacted. This is crucial in knowing how much of a head start the kids had . We only have a time given by janie of her call with her brother 8.48 am and hearing the kids shortly after that .


So where the kids missing three quarters of an hour before mbm noticed them gone or was it longer and janie is mistaken on hearing the kids after the call ??

We read in the article jack had a black eye in September and in January and lilly had one from the Wednesday the 30th of April, this is also the day the baby support payment stopped as Daniel hadn't filed his taxes on time and this date was the deadline . It was also the day mbm washed all of lilly and jacks clothes in her grandmothers and why the kids slept in clothing worn on the Thursday night to bed as mbm had not unpacked them . A lot happening on Wednesday the 30th ,a lot to not easily forget but yet both mbm and DM were confused over the happenings of this day According to the documents


We also learn there is still old mineshafts to be searched.

We also learn Daniel used a profile on fb to communicate / speak to the G&M that was also used to add cryptic messages in a discussion group on fb about the missing children. What fire was he hoping to quell or start with that ?

We also learn that the rcmp have released conflicting statement regarding their believe in the children being alive or dead . In this article they state they believe the children are no longer alive but in a later article/ interview they state they have no evidence to believe the children are dead . So is this a pattern they seem to engage in to throw a cat amongst the pigeons ? Or are different investigations officers just giving their own opinions? And if they are doing either what are they hoping to achieve from the listening public ? To quell the rumours or to ignite them in the hope of flushing out or relax a potential perp or entice a witness to come forward?

I think RCMP released the statement they believed the children were no longer alive at the conclusion of the search of the forest after six days. But it wasn’t a blanket statement and since then they have stated they have no evidence that the children are deceased, including being unsuccessful at locating any remains or other evidence in the forest.

 

[su5ie]

I think RCMP released the statement they believed the children were no longer alive at the conclusion of the search of the forest after six days. But it wasn’t a blanket statement and since then they have stated they have no evidence that the children are deceased, including being unsuccessful at locating any remains or other evidence in the forest.

I was just noting the premature release of the first statement when contrasted with the later statement and how sometimes the quotes we are reading in the present moment may change in the future, as more evidence is looked at and more reviews of tips and information is gone through. And potential new evidence comes to the fore .

that's the essence of an investigation constant change .

 

[MistyWaters]

Reread the article and have to say there isn't anything written in it I haven't read before. The article has been upcycled.

Biased reporting, almost manipulative in tone. With language that borders on a type of false narrative that includes ambiguous turn of phrase and wobbly sources, such as YouTube and facebook.

The articles as it stands is crap and undemocratic.

I’m not a fan of the emotionally-hyped narrative either. The flowery writing style is more suitable for a novel as opposed to serious journalism involving an unsolved tragedy about missing children, although the reporter has done a certain amount of legwork to restate facts and details summarized all within one report.

Considering G&M historically has appealed to the business sector plus it charges a subscription, it’s as if this article targeted an entirely different type of audience in order to increase their readership.
JMO

 

[Slebby]

Reread the article and have to say there isn't anything written in it I haven't read before. The article has been upcycled.

Biased reporting, almost manipulative in tone. With language that borders on a type of false narrative that includes ambiguous turn of phrase and wobbly sources, such as YouTube and facebook.

The articles as it stands is crap and undemocratic.

I am surprised you consider this to be biased reporting. Lindsay Jones and Greg Mercer have done quite a lot of work on this case. They are experienced and well respected journalists.
I don’t personally know of a more respected Canadian newspaper.
In what way is it biased?
This particular article from Aug 8th, in my opinion, is a source of a great deal of information we have referenced again and again on this thread.
imho
Edit to add …

This article was an in-depth feature article written for a Saturday audience, and not your average weekday news item. As such it was not limited to updated facts of the investigative progress, but revealed much more background, analysis, and human interest details.

IMHO

 

[MistyWaters]

I was just noting the premature release of the first statement when contrasted with the later statement and how sometimes the quotes we are reading in the present moment may change in the future, as more evidence is looked at and more reviews of tips and information is gone through. And potential new evidence comes to the fore .

that's the essence of an investigation constant change .

Yes very true. Maybe the type of police-speak is a Canadian thing! lol

 

[musicaljoke]

I was just noting the premature release of the first statement when contrasted with the later statement and how sometimes the quotes we are reading in the present moment may change in the future, as more evidence is looked at and more reviews of tips and information is gone through. And potential new evidence comes to the fore .

that's the essence of an investigation constant change .

Actually the statements are not in contrast with one another.

It was possible to say that after six days of searching in the woods, police did not believe that there would be living children in the woods. Therefore the Search and Rescue work in the woods came to an end. This statement was based on rational thinking. We know that children would not likely survive in the forest for more than six days.

The police also said that they have no evidence to prove that the children are no longer alive. Evidence specific to showing that the children are not alive would be such as their recovered bodies or other tangible evidence, such as a murder scene, to indicate that they could not have survived. No such evidence exists.

The investigators have not changed their account, nor do the accounts conflict with one another. Rather they are describing two aspects of the case.

 

[huckleberryhound]

There is a new Google Earth streetview update for DM's home taken in Aug 2025. It shows what looks like a homemade missing sign for Lily and Jack on the roadside in front of the house. Sad-

 

[seasideForest]

The articles as it stands is crap and undemocratic.

Wow, crap I could understand in general, about a newspaper article, but "undemocratic"? Interesting. Anyway...

I linked it partly as a refresher, so to speak, because it seems to me recently there's been quite a lot of "show me the link to that... / where did you read that?!? / in what car exactly did DM do his search, was it his? Was it Maleya's?" etc ad nauseam... and this article seems to give a fairly good re-hash of all of that. A lot of those questions were coming from people who are often on this thread, not 'newbies' to the case at all. I don't know about you, but I can't retain every single fact on the cases I'm following!

MOO

 

[seasideForest]

Considering G&M historically has appealed to the business sector plus it charges a subscription

Back in the day, I had a subscription to G&M from overseas (so more expensive) because it's a good-quality Canadian newspaper (or it was, idk if it still is) and I'm certainly not part of the business sector. Just interested in well-written and well-researched articles. Anyway, I linked it this time for a different reason which I've written in post to Bigditch.