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

[su5ie]

This case is (surprisingly) not criminal in nature, but all potential evidence must be protected for a court trial. So it seems.

100% this , if the disappearance is not considered criminal which it has been stated it is not ,even though as far as I know it didn't say ' at this time " nor has it stated a belief an abduction took place nor is there a poi . So why is the time assumed by mbm of the kids going missing redacted.

So far I haven't seen an answer to my original question that stipulates a reason that doesn't incorporate some element of criminality attached for the hypothetical reason for redaction to work. A trial would only happen if a murder ,abduction or negligence led to the kids being missing . But we are being led to believe none of this happened.

So without second guessing if the RCMP's are being misleading or being covert in their releases of information in case of a trial and we take it as fact of what they state to be true that the above elements are not suspected

What are the other reasons a suspected time stated by mbm of the kids wandering be redacted ?

@Slebby did state above ' because it may differ from what is known from msm releases and yes this is certainly why I posed the question. Because the time being redacted would imply that this investigation is indeed thought about in criminal terms because what is and isn't being released contradicts the other

Edited to add imo and only as I see it

 

[MistyWaters]

100% this , if the disappearance is not considered criminal which it has been stated it is not ,even though as far as I know it didn't say ' at this time " nor has it stated a belief an abduction took place nor is there a poi . So why is the time assumed by mbm of the kids going missing redacted.

So far I haven't seen an answer to my original question that stipulates a reason that doesn't incorporate some element of criminality attached for the hypothetical reason for redaction to work. A trial would only happen if a murder ,abduction or negligence led to the kids being missing . But we are being led to believe none of this happened.

So without second guessing if the RCMP's are being misleading or being covert in their releases of information in case of a trial and we take it as fact of what they state to be true that the above elements are not suspected

What are the other reasons a suspected time stated by mbm of the kids wandering be redacted ?

@Slebby did state above ' because it may differ from what is known from msm releases and yes this is certainly why I posed the question. Because the time being redacted would imply that this investigation is indeed thought about in criminal terms because what is and isn't being released contradicts the other

Edited to add imo and only as I see it

There’s other reasons LE might withhold a timeline aside from suspected criminality. When the public isn’t informed of an accurate timeline, it can be a means for LE to scurtinize the value of tips it receives. The most valuable tips align with information the public hasn’t been made aware of.

It’s been noted from past cases that sometimes family members work with LE with regard to what they say or don’t say to the media. This is why I’ve never assumed what is learned through the media is 100% accurate or the full details. If that assists LE in solving the disappearance of loved ones, who can blame them.

How the RCMP are managing the information pertaining to the case, none of us can possibly know and that’s just how it goes. We can’t assume that we know everything the RCMP knows nor are they obliged to inform us during an open, ongoing investigation.

Hoping there will be another update in the near future…
JMO

 

[su5ie]

There’s other reasons LE might withhold a timeline aside from suspected criminality. When the public isn’t informed of an accurate timeline, it can be a means for LE to scurtinize the value of tips it receives. The most valuable tips align with information the public hasn’t been made aware of.

It’s been noted from past cases that sometimes family members work with LE with regard to what they say or don’t say to the media. This is why I’ve never assumed what is learned through the media is 100% accurate or the full details. If that assists LE in solving the disappearance of loved ones, who can blame them.

How the RCMP are managing the information pertaining to the case, none of us can possibly know and that’s just how it goes. We can’t assume that we know everything the RCMP knows nor are they obliged to inform us during an open, ongoing investigation.

Hoping there will be another update in the near future…
JMO

Do you suspect that's why they also redacted the specific time Maleyha rang her mother

 

[MistyWaters]

Do you suspect that's why they also redacted the specific time Maleyha rang her mother

Might be. On that topic I was reminded that DM said Maleyha’s mom got there surprisingly quickly the morning the children disappeared (my words).

 

[su5ie]

Might be. On that topic I was reminded that DM said Maleyha’s mom got there surprisingly quickly the morning the children disappeared (my words).

I do wish those two times weren't redacted . It would be so helpful in subsiding any creeping doubtfulness .

I feel it hinders my judgement of timeline . If I Knew the exact time mbm opined the kids went missing, it would allow a better and more realistic estimate of how much of a head start the kids had on searchers and DMs intial panicked search .

As the time line stands it gives the view the kids had prehaps 20 minutes head start of being noticed missing which in turn then gives me the impression that Daniel should have found them or the very least the kids the chance to holler back at him calling their names .

Whereas if the time Maleyha noticed the kids missing at even 50 minutes previous it would give the kids a much bigger head start to the point they may not have heard the frantic calls of janie and Daniel.

I just don't see why this time stamp and mbms phone call to her mum has to be shrouded in secrecy when other timestamps are laid bare for all to see . Surely if one or two timestamps are redacted, the whole lot of the timestamps should be if we are to go with the hypothesis of the case going to trial for a reason of them being redacted

 

[su5ie]

Things I would like to know

What was in the backpack ?

What time Maleyha rang her mum and what time she thought the kids went missing?

Was short curl lady and tan / gold sedan located and eliminated from inquiries?

Has forensic analysis of the blanket been finalised and did those test results turn up anything of value ?

How many houses had cameras that faced the road and how many of those cameras were programmed for all motion and where they each in a location that when footage was pieced together it captured the road in its entirety?

How many trail cams were in the area and were there blindspots or locations in which there were none and if so were there areas large enough that one could navigate through and not be seen . And if they encompassed most of the circumference of the area searched , was anything of value gleaned from the footage ?

And I'm intrigued by how the children managed to avoid being seen on all these cameras that seem
to rule every other tip or scenario out . And if the kids were able to miss these areas , could someone else familiar with the area be able to avoid them also ?

If cctv analysis of the road was conclusive enough to say there was no evidence of a vehicle. And trail cams didnt pick up anybody or anything of interest Did these same cameras give an image of the blanket in the tree to verify if it was present prior to the kids going missing ?

Was the bear found ?

Just some questions that float around in my cerebral fluids

 

[sunspun]

Was the bear found ?

Yes, every time I see mention of the wrench or whatever it was that DM said he kept wedged in the front door, because "there was a bear that liked to hang around outside" as he put it (or similar words), it makes me wonder how they could possibly think it was safe enough to let the kids play outside alone at any time! When they talk about a bear that might come right up to their front door?

 

[Bigditch]

Black bears are not known to be aggressive. Make a loud sound and they're outta there, but at night when everything is quiet a bear will approach if it smells food. Wrench story makes perfect sense to me.

 

[MistyWaters]

Things I would like to know

What was in the backpack ?

What time Maleyha rang her mum and what time she thought the kids went missing?

Was short curl lady and tan / gold sedan located and eliminated from inquiries?

Has forensic analysis of the blanket been finalised and did those test results turn up anything of value ?

How many houses had cameras that faced the road and how many of those cameras were programmed for all motion and where they each in a location that when footage was pieced together it captured the road in its entirety?

How many trail cams were in the area and were there blindspots or locations in which there were none and if so were there areas large enough that one could navigate through and not be seen . And if they encompassed most of the circumference of the area searched , was anything of value gleaned from the footage ?

And I'm intrigued by how the children managed to avoid being seen on all these cameras that seem
to rule every other tip or scenario out . And if the kids were able to miss these areas , could someone else familiar with the area be able to avoid them also ?

If cctv analysis of the road was conclusive enough to say there was no evidence of a vehicle. And trail cams didnt pick up anybody or anything of interest Did these same cameras give an image of the blanket in the tree to verify if it was present prior to the kids going missing ?

Was the bear found ?

Just some questions that float around in my cerebral fluids

If there were cameras on the road, surely the children wandering into the woods would’ve been picked up. But we know that’s not true.

The RCMP stated they thoroughly reviewed surveillance footage seeking ‘vehicle activity’, but they never said they reviewed it looking for a vehicle driving down the road. There are various methods to identify vehicle activity, for example tire tracks in mud, sound of loud mufflers, headlights at night are all indications of activity of a vehicle.

So I think the RCMP was able to discount the tip because nighttime surveillance footage was scrutinized seeking headlights illuminating in the darkness on Garloch Road. That’s similar to LE seeking DNA or fingerprints during an investigation, it’s evidence of a person being there without the person being spotted. Likewise an actual vehicle need not be located on footage to prove lack of vehicle activity if the road remained dark during the entire time in mention (midnight to 5am iirc) unless the vehicle was driving without headlights, which we know is not true because one of the neighbours mentioned he noticed the headlights over the top of trees.

Nighttime surveillance footage may’ve been directed toward Garloch Road adequately enough to reveal any vehicle headlights (or lack thereof) but come daybreak, not positioned or was too far away to capture the children wandering nor any daytime vehicle activity, which would be why the disappearance of Lilly and Jack is not yet solved.
JMO

 

[musicaljoke]

Things I would like to know

What was in the backpack ?

What time Maleyha rang her mum and what time she thought the kids went missing?

Was short curl lady and tan / gold sedan located and eliminated from inquiries?

Has forensic analysis of the blanket been finalised and did those test results turn up anything of value ?

How many houses had cameras that faced the road and how many of those cameras were programmed for all motion and where they each in a location that when footage was pieced together it captured the road in its entirety?

How many trail cams were in the area and were there blindspots or locations in which there were none and if so were there areas large enough that one could navigate through and not be seen . And if they encompassed most of the circumference of the area searched , was anything of value gleaned from the footage ?

And I'm intrigued by how the children managed to avoid being seen on all these cameras that seem
to rule every other tip or scenario out . And if the kids were able to miss these areas , could someone else familiar with the area be able to avoid them also ?

If cctv analysis of the road was conclusive enough to say there was no evidence of a vehicle. And trail cams didnt pick up anybody or anything of interest Did these same cameras give an image of the blanket in the tree to verify if it was present prior to the kids going missing ?

Was the bear found ?

Just some questions that float around in my cerebral fluids

What I understand from what you are saying is that you wish you were a fly on the wall of the police investigation, someone privy to the file of evidence.

Alas, I am sure we all would like to know more in order to fine tune our understanding of what happened. But the next step is accepting that the investigation carries on without reporting these details to the general public. If there are criminal charges to come then we will eventually hear answers to our questions. Until then, family has the right to privacy.

 

[Slebby]

Black bears are not known to be aggressive. Make a loud sound and they're outta there, but at night when everything is quiet a bear will approach if it smells food. Wrench story makes perfect sense to me.

If a black bear rolled into their yard, it could be very dangerous for children. They could run away and get chased, screaming could also incite a black bear. Screaming and running are 2 natural reactions, especially for children.
A bear is not any more dangerous at night as to necessitate a special wrench-in-door system than it is in the daytime for children or really anyone who has not been oriented as to what to do in a bear encounter.
Something I wonder is if searchers came across fresh bear scat in their search of the woods.

IMO

 

[FromGermany1]

How many trail cams were in the area and were there blindspots or locations in which there were none and if so were there areas large enough that one could navigate through and not be seen . And if they encompassed most of the circumference of the area searched , was anything of value gleaned from the footage ?

And I'm intrigued by how the children managed to avoid being seen on all these cameras that seem
to rule every other tip or scenario out . And if the kids were able to miss these areas , could someone else familiar with the area be able to avoid them also ?

bbm/ ^^^This.

 

[Hexe]

If a black bear rolled into their yard, it could be very dangerous for children. They could run away and get chased, screaming could also incite a black bear. Screaming and running are 2 natural reactions, especially for children.

For all I know screaming usually incites black bears to run away, not to attack. Also, according to both DM and MBM the children were never left unsupervised while outdoors.

Now, a black bear that got itself into closed space, like a trailer, would get panicky not being able to find the way out easily, and that would be much, much more dangerous to everyone involved. The loud clank of falling wrench could deteriorate it from getting inside.

 

[Twistinginthewind]

Rbbm

Just something that reminded of this:

Obviously we are following this story before it reaches any kind of resolution, whatever that may be. And we're trying to create timelines, not just of the original event, whatever it is, but also LE's investigation as bits and pieces come to us.

This is entirely my speculation and not intended to convict anyone, just an exercise in how I have personally seen these things unfold in other cases.

Let's say that most of the known "facts" of this story are generally true.

Neighbors heard a vehicle, attributed it to Daniel's car.

LE investigated all available video footage and couldn't not corroborate that. So...

Either there was no vehicle activity

Or there was vehicle activity, there just couldn't corroborate it.

Why? Maybe they're was video that was unavailable to them. Written over, glitched, unsaved, angled poorly.

(In another trial, smoke from a fireplace was a smoking gun of sorts, implicating a co-conspiratist to murder. Video fun a nearby home was recovered and the only reason it was recorded was because the homeowners dog tripped the motion detector.)

We don't knew what kind of security cameras the neighbors had. Motion detection, sound detection, intermittent video, streaming video, etc.

The neighbor who also apparently saw headlights reflecting above the trees, was that a personal sighting or viewed on video? Even if LE saw it on video, I would think they still couldn't confirm it as vehicle-produced (but might have every reason not to broadcast their observation).

Now let's say, armed with that evidence (unsubstantiated witness testimony), they interview Daniel.

Again speculation:

LE: did you go anywhere overnight?
Daniel: no
LE: are you sure?
Daniel: yes? I'm sure.
LE: what if we told you we have witnesses who heard your vehicle, in fact, back and forth several times?
Daniel: that didn't happen. I didn't go anywhere. My car isn't even drivable, and the other car isn't noisy.
LE: what if I told you that we have a witness who saw headlights coming from your direction?
Daniel: not possible. I didn't go anywhere. I did check on the kids around midnight, it turned the light on to see them, maybe that's what your witness saw. It sure wasn't me, driving.

IMO an interview like that might explain some of the details, "facts", answers we've been hearing about.

JMO

Good points. In terms of vehicles available to drive (by DM, I guess, MBM wasn't going to be driving late at night, she went to bed with Meadow she's said & Lilly and Jack were in bed), he's said he didn't drive one of their family vehicles that night before they went missing.

But IIRC, DM had his trail vehicle he used to look for them that morning.

JMO

 

[Danaya]

I have a hard time believing that the kids wouldn't of been found if they got lost in the woods. The piece of torn blanket was found more towards the road, no? They've had dogs out there when the smell of decomposition would've been strong. When they say it's not criminal in nature, I wonder if they truly believe that, given the evidence. I really do wonder if the eyewitness report of seeing a woman that morning is accurate. Has it ever been clarified if she sent the tip in right after the children were reported missing?

The description of the little girl's outfit didn't match what Lily was last seen wearing, which was "a pink Barbie top." I assume Lily took her backpack and rainboots with her as well, since that's what the Major Crimes website has stated. Was the pink Barbie top part of her pj set? Didn't they also find Lily’s bootprint on the trail that led to the road?

 

[Marzipan]

I have a hard time believing that the kids wouldn't of been found if they got lost in the woods. The piece of torn blanket was found more towards the road, no? They've had dogs out there when the smell of decomposition would've been strong. When they say it's not criminal in nature, I wonder if they truly believe that, given the evidence. I really do wonder if the eyewitness report of seeing a woman that morning is accurate. Has it ever been clarified if she sent the tip in right after the children were reported missing?

The description of the little girl's outfit didn't match what Lily was last seen wearing, which was "a pink Barbie top." I assume Lily took her backpack and rainboots with her as well, since that's what the Major Crimes website has stated. Was the pink Barbie top part of her pj set? Didn't they also find Lily’s bootprint on the trail that led to the road?

One scenario in my opinion is that the pink blanket square was placed there by an adult who had access to the rest of the blanket that was found in the garbage, and that the boot print may have been placed there too.
Of course then there should be adult shoe prints in both areas and they would be evidence of such staging of clues. I don’t know about any of it — all just one idea. Please refute if it doesn’t work.

 

[Serononin]

I have a hard time believing that the kids wouldn't of been found if they got lost in the woods. The piece of torn blanket was found more towards the road, no? They've had dogs out there when the smell of decomposition would've been strong. When they say it's not criminal in nature, I wonder if they truly believe that, given the evidence. I really do wonder if the eyewitness report of seeing a woman that morning is accurate. Has it ever been clarified if she sent the tip in right after the children were reported missing?

The description of the little girl's outfit didn't match what Lily was last seen wearing, which was "a pink Barbie top." I assume Lily took her backpack and rainboots with her as well, since that's what the Major Crimes website has stated. Was the pink Barbie top part of her pj set? Didn't they also find Lily’s bootprint on the trail that led to the road?

I don't remember the exact timeframe, but the gold car tip was reported a few days after the disappearance (like maybe a week later?)

 

[Dreamcherry]

I've read about multiple high risk sex offenders unfortunately residing in Nova Scotia. Douglas Worth, "the Pictou Sadist". George Durling. Gamon Jay Leacock. (I think one or two are back in jail on breach of conditions, but it's a revolving door.)

One repeat-offending pedophile named Gerald Paul Ward has a family connection to someone tangentially related to the case. But he was not in the province at the time, apparently, and it's said he's been ruled out.

I can't even remotely understand why Douglas Worth wasn't in prison for his whole natural life. What in God's name is wrong with our justice system?

 

[FromGermany1]

Wasn't one of the men supposedly working on a vehicle. Unless he has a garage, he'd need plenty of light to see by.

I said, I'm believing the witness/es, but of course I wondered about the one witness, who allegedly was working on a car/cars by night. After midnight I find that verrry strange, but what do I know about living in NS.

 

[BCSleuth]

Is there evidence that lie detector tests, or the passing of them, is usually correct?

Not really. There are pretty terrible, actually. And do we even have official word they passed multiple tests? They are more of an interrogation tool: folks don't think they will get away with lying so they don't. Many suspects will suddenly change their story just before a lie detector test.

If somebody passes multiple lie detectors tests it suggests they are being truthful. But it is not proof.

I would never take one due to the possibility of false positives.