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

[LookingForClues]

I'm extremely visual and when view the picture of the searcher on Saturday transversely crossing the river I assumed that the river at times is a raging tor..rent of fast flowing undercurrent and rapids ? So one snapshot can be so misleading if others are not so sure if it's anything more than a stream or Brook in spring time.

Snipped by me for focus...

<modsnip> It doesn't take much water to drown. And it doesn't take much rain to get a brook gushing or rushing, followed by a quick drop in water levels. I think drowning is still a possibility.

 

[BCSleuth]

The situation is that police don’t operate on feelings, guesswork or speculation. What they said, plain and simple, is they found no evidence of an abduction. But that doesn’t mean they stopped investigating all possibilities, as they have stated, which would include abduction. Only if or when they discover evidence of an abduction would they announce they believe the children were abducted. Even then it’s not a fact until the abductor is prosecuted of the crime in a court of law.

Patience, sometimes complex investigations take years to close.

Where did I say "that police operate on feelings, guesswork, or specution?"

You can continue to say, "they found no evidence of an abduction" all day long. The counter statement is that "they have found no evidence that they were NOT abducted."

In fact, I kind of wonder why police announce one but not the other. At this point the idea that they may still be out there, just missing in the wilderness, seems incredibly naive. This is TWO children, not just one. Ages 4 and 6. They didn't run away from home to start a new life.

 

[Slebby]

I feel there will be lawsuits in the pipeline , I think it may explain the silence from family in this case jmho

Law suits filed by whom, against whom?

 

[MistyWaters]

Where did I say "that police operate on feelings, guesswork, or specution?"

You can continue to say, "they found no evidence of an abduction" all day long. The counter statement is that "they have found no evidence that they were NOT abducted."

In fact, I kind of wonder why police announce one but not the other. At this point the idea that they may still be out there, just missing in the wilderness, seems incredibly naive. This is TWO children, not just one. Ages 4 and 6. They didn't run away from home to start a new life.

How would finding no evidence of an abduction result in identification and conviction of a suspect?

 

[Lalalacasbah]

The situation is that police don’t operate on feelings, guesswork or speculation. What they said, plain and simple, is they found no evidence of an abduction. But that doesn’t mean they stopped investigating all possibilities, as they have stated, which would include abduction. Only if or when they discover evidence of an abduction would they announce they believe the children were abducted. Even then it’s not a fact until the abductor is prosecuted of the crime in a court of law.

Patience, sometimes complex investigations take years to close.

I am curious if police even announce that the case has turned into an abduction though? Do they have an obligation to the public if their case changed directions? I don't think they have to keep us/the public in the know about every twist and turn the case takes.

Police use well orchestrated, divisive public relations language. There must be some process or criteria (or not) to change language from "missing persons" to "abducted". I don't recall too often hearing press releases from LE actually using the word abducted as much but I'd have to go look. It's a harsh word.

Abducted is an agressive word - it sounds more final. Missing person - has some sense of hope a loved one can be found. I have heard them say a case went from missing person to foul play or homicide but I don't recall too often hearing missing person to abducted to foul play.

Not trying to split hairs! I'm one of the few very open to an abduction theory is all. Abduction doesn't have to be random total stranger, could be known to the family, friends, relatives, kids, community, etc.

 

[Lalalacasbah]

Where did I say "that police operate on feelings, guesswork, or specution?"

You can continue to say, "they found no evidence of an abduction" all day long. The counter statement is that "they have found no evidence that they were NOT abducted."

In fact, I kind of wonder why police announce one but not the other. At this point the idea that they may still be out there, just missing in the wilderness, seems incredibly naive. This is TWO children, not just one. Ages 4 and 6. They didn't run away from home to start a new life.

I am still thinking abduction is possible as well, you are not alone!

I understand LE said that it wasn't at the beginning but am curious if they'd update the public if things have changed behind closed doors in their investigation (as I mention in my last post with the lingo).

 

[BCSleuth]

I am still thinking abduction is possible as well, you are not alone!

I understand LE said that it wasn't at the beginning but am curious if they'd update the public if things have changed behind closed doors in their investigation (as I mention in my last post with the lingo).

The Canadian RCMP is notorious for providing no information whatsoever to the public regarding their ongoing investigations. What they say over and over again is that they "do not want to compromise the integrity of the investigation." There are actually very good reasons for this under Canadian law, the most important of which is to ensure a fair trial. Unfortunately, that is just the way the Canadian justice system works. Nothing is said until it all comes out in court.

 

[MistyWaters]

I am curious if police even announce that the case has turned into an abduction though? Do they have an obligation to the public if their case changed directions? I don't think they have to keep us/the public in the know about every twist and turn the case takes.

Police use well orchestrated, divisive public relations language. There must be some process or criteria (or not) to change language from "missing persons" to "abducted". I don't recall too often hearing press releases from LE actually using the word abducted as much but I'd have to go look. It's a harsh word.

Abducted is an agressive word - it sounds more final. Missing person - has some sense of hope a loved one can be found. I have heard them say a case went from missing person to foul play or homicide but I don't recall too often hearing missing person to abducted to foul play.

Not trying to split hairs! I'm one of the few very open to an abduction theory is all. Abduction doesn't have to be random total stranger, could be known to the family, friends, relatives, kids, community, etc.

I agree. When the RCMP state this is a Missing Persons case, generally speaking that indicates criminal charges aren’t anticipated, as opposed to a Criminal Investigation involving criminal acts, such as an abduction without parental consent. You’re right, handing off one’s children in some kind of kinship arrangement is not a crime, nor is it illegal. But falsely reporting a person/s to be missing certainly is.

IMO what the RCMP think happened doesn’t result in justice being served, until such time as they’re able to determine who’s responsible for the children’s disappearance so somebody can be held accountable.

On the other hand, if indeed the children wandered into the woods and the bodies haven’t yet been found, that explains why the RCMP are unable to find evidence of an abduction, homicide or other foul play having occurred.

JMO

 

[su5ie]

I'm wondering what evidence is present for the wandering theory to work ?

Is it the lack of evidence for other scenarios ? Therefore it must be a wandering?

Same thought process can be applied to that as the presence or lack of presence of the reported vehicle, lack of evidence for a vehicle so therefore there must be none !! Can that be applied to the wandering theory ? can't it ? No evidence of a wandering so therefore there must not be one ??

 

[MistyWaters]

I'm wondering what evidence is present for the wandering theory to work ?

Is it the lack of evidence for other scenarios ? Therefore it must be a wandering?

Same thought process can be applied to that as the presence or lack of presence of the reported vehicle, lack of evidence for a vehicle so therefore there must be none !! Can that be applied to the wandering theory ? can't it ? No evidence of a wandering so therefore there must not be one ??

The RCMP had no option but to consider the wandering theory as a strong possibility. Imagine, two children go missing from a home surrounded by a dense forest and so 911 is called. So suppose LE says they need evidence of what occurred beyond the parents claiming the missing children left the home through a sliding glass door and their boots are missing and therefore the RCMP refuse to search the wooded area surrounding the home??? Aren’t the basic circumstances evidence enough to consider the children might’ve wandered off? It’s not as if hard evidence that the children wandered needs to be provided to the court, that’s totally different than if someone is to be prosecuted for abduction or homicide.

I think we’ve reached a point where we lack meaningful and insightful topics of discussion.

 

[Slebby]

I'm wondering what evidence is present for the wandering theory to work ?

Is it the lack of evidence for other scenarios ? Therefore it must be a wandering?

Same thought process can be applied to that as the presence or lack of presence of the reported vehicle, lack of evidence for a vehicle so therefore there must be none !! Can that be applied to the wandering theory ? can't it ? No evidence of a wandering so therefore there must not be one ??

Good question.
If we assume the sliding door was unlocked, it’s as possible that someone opened the door from the outside as from the inside.
Is the only reason for discounting this possibility the fact that LE hasn’t detected any cars from security video surveillance of the area?
This case is such a puzzle because every possible theory doesn’t seem to quite fit the facts, as far as we know.
IMHO

 

[Twistinginthewind]

Google docs of the case . I don't know where I seen it in that format but did save the image in my folder . You don't have to take it as fact but I did not get it from SM as I take this case extremely seriously and am not interested in hearsay or gossip.inteferring with the known facts

I will sometimes base my posts with gut feeling, hypothesis and musings but I would not deliberately mislead nor insert mistruths

Maybe I'm wrong on this so you can choose to ignore if it doesn't align with number of pages in documents which you keenly observed


This is the actual document page and where it would state time it states delayed redaction so I could have seen it after this I downloaded this page on the 12th of Oct View attachment 625624

Thank you for posting this, su5ie~it helps to have an actual screenshot "from before" (October 12).

Secondarily to the redacted part on May 2nd, which I agree fits with MBM's mother missing a call that morning from her before Lilly and Jack went missing, the part on the 2nd page about the boot prints has made me think about that again, which I don't remember in such detail, and also never quite made sense to me -- that is, child-sized boot prints were found, but not in a they walked along fashion, but in clumps.

I've often wondered why boot prints would be found in clumps.

There has to be a reason they occurred that way since there was no heavy weather IIRC that could have washed away some lighter prints but not the clumps of presumably deeper ones.

For example:

-- They tread lightly or tiptoed or walked on densely packed grass/weeds that would not leave an impression for aways, and then at just that one point, they both put more weight down or it was muddier/less vegetated or they were weighted down suddenly and/or they jumped up and down or were trying to climb their way out of something like a ditch or puddle (which wasn't mentioned by LE) for some reason.

-- They fell down or were thrown down suddenly to the ground and were making an effort/struggling to get up.

-- They were dropped off of a vehicle or were carried or dragged there before they were dropped onto the ground with enough force to have their boots touch the ground and make a clump of impressions.

IDK, but it's all so weird, to me, anyway, there wouldn't be obvious scents of them or boot prints along the way to that spot, just a clump of 2 different child-sized boot prints.

One scenario under which their scents being lost at the end of the driveway and the clumps of 2 different child-sized boot prints came to be on the pipeline trail IF they were Lilly and Jack's (and why not, IMO, it makes sense if they just went missing and may have "wandered off" and it was a rural location near their home and within walkable distance) is that they were driven off the residential property by an adult and dropped there where the boot prints were found, Temporarily/Instantaneously, then they were either taken elsewhere in another vehicle, or went into the river for some reason or another, conscious or unconscious.

I would have added they could have walked further from there (the clumping area) before they vanished, but IIRC, SAR had scent dogs sniff all around the boot prints and they led nowhere in terms of evidence that if it was Lilly and Jack, that they left the clumping area "on foot".

Not only did LE say this about the clumping area and following up with searches focused there, but that although they had heard other people were out searching with children, so the boot prints could have been some other children's, "they did think it was an out of the way area for people to bring their children to search".

So, the only thing that makes sense with their scents lost at the end of the driveway of their home and possibly their bootprints being found in clumps on the pipeline trail, IMO, is that they were transported and dropped there, for a bit of time before they were transported elsewhere or fell into rushing water and were not able to be found anywhere thereabouts after searching for them with all resources at hand right away.

JMP

 

[Marzipan]

Thank you for posting this, su5ie~it helps to have an actual screenshot "from before" (October 12).

Secondarily to the redacted part on May 2nd, which I agree fits with MBM's mother missing a call that morning from her before Lilly and Jack went missing, the part on the 2nd page about the boot prints has made me think about that again, which I don't remember in such detail, and also never quite made sense to me -- that is, child-sized boot prints were found, but not in a they walked along fashion, but in clumps.

I've often wondered why boot prints would be found in clumps.

There has to be a reason they occurred that way since there was no heavy weather IIRC that could have washed away some lighter prints but not the clumps of presumably deeper ones.

For example:

-- They tread lightly or tiptoed or walked on densely packed grass/weeds that would not leave an impression for aways, and then at just that one point, they both put more weight down or it was muddier/less vegetated or they were weighted down suddenly and/or they jumped up and down or were trying to climb their way out of something like a ditch or puddle (which wasn't mentioned by LE) for some reason.

-- They fell down or were thrown down suddenly to the ground and were making an effort/struggling to get up.

-- They were dropped off of a vehicle or were carried or dragged there before they were dropped onto the ground with enough force to have their boots touch the ground and make a clump of impressions.

IDK, but it's all so weird, to me, anyway, there wouldn't be obvious scents of them or boot prints along the way to that spot, just a clump of 2 different child-sized boot prints.

One scenario under which their scents being lost at the end of the driveway and the clumps of 2 different child-sized boot prints came to be on the pipeline trail IF they were Lilly and Jack's (and why not, IMO, it makes sense if they just went missing and may have "wandered off" and it was a rural location near their home and within walkable distance) is that they were driven off the residential property by an adult and dropped there where the boot prints were found, Temporarily/Instantaneously, then they were either taken elsewhere in another vehicle, or went into the river for some reason or another, conscious or unconscious.

I would have added they could have walked further from there (the clumping area) before they vanished, but IIRC, SAR had scent dogs sniff all around the boot prints and they led nowhere in terms of evidence that if it was Lilly and Jack, that they left the clumping area "on foot".

Not only did LE say this about the clumping area and following up with searches focused there, but that although they had heard other people were out searching with children, so the boot prints could have been some other children's, "they did think it was an out of the way area for people to bring their children to search".

So, the only thing that makes sense with their scents lost at the end of the driveway of their home and possibly their bootprints being found in clumps on the pipeline trail, IMO, is that they were transported and dropped there, for a bit of time before they were transported elsewhere or fell into rushing water and were not able to be found anywhere thereabouts after searching for them with all resources at hand right away.

JMP

Or adults used the boots to make impressions in the soil, creating false evidence. Now I can’t recall if adult prints were found too but I think so — if so one would think the adult prints could be good identifying evidence. Perhaps they were all casted and are in evidence storage.

 

[Slebby]

Thank you for posting this, su5ie~it helps to have an actual screenshot "from before" (October 12).

Secondarily to the redacted part on May 2nd, which I agree fits with MBM's mother missing a call that morning from her before Lilly and Jack went missing, the part on the 2nd page about the boot prints has made me think about that again, which I don't remember in such detail, and also never quite made sense to me -- that is, child-sized boot prints were found, but not in a they walked along fashion, but in clumps.

I've often wondered why boot prints would be found in clumps.

There has to be a reason they occurred that way since there was no heavy weather IIRC that could have washed away some lighter prints but not the clumps of presumably deeper ones.

For example:

-- They tread lightly or tiptoed or walked on densely packed grass/weeds that would not leave an impression for aways, and then at just that one point, they both put more weight down or it was muddier/less vegetated or they were weighted down suddenly and/or they jumped up and down or were trying to climb their way out of something like a ditch or puddle (which wasn't mentioned by LE) for some reason.

-- They fell down or were thrown down suddenly to the ground and were making an effort/struggling to get up.

-- They were dropped off of a vehicle or were carried or dragged there before they were dropped onto the ground with enough force to have their boots touch the ground and make a clump of impressions.

IDK, but it's all so weird, to me, anyway, there wouldn't be obvious scents of them or boot prints along the way to that spot, just a clump of 2 different child-sized boot prints.

One scenario under which their scents being lost at the end of the driveway and the clumps of 2 different child-sized boot prints came to be on the pipeline trail IF they were Lilly and Jack's (and why not, IMO, it makes sense if they just went missing and may have "wandered off" and it was a rural location near their home and within walkable distance) is that they were driven off the residential property by an adult and dropped there where the boot prints were found, Temporarily/Instantaneously, then they were either taken elsewhere in another vehicle, or went into the river for some reason or another, conscious or unconscious.

I would have added they could have walked further from there (the clumping area) before they vanished, but IIRC, SAR had scent dogs sniff all around the boot prints and they led nowhere in terms of evidence that if it was Lilly and Jack, that they left the clumping area "on foot".

Not only did LE say this about the clumping area and following up with searches focused there, but that although they had heard other people were out searching with children, so the boot prints could have been some other children's, "they did think it was an out of the way area for people to bring their children to search".

So, the only thing that makes sense with their scents lost at the end of the driveway of their home and possibly their bootprints being found in clumps on the pipeline trail, IMO, is that they were transported and dropped there, for a bit of time before they were transported elsewhere or fell into rushing water and were not able to be found anywhere thereabouts after searching for them with all resources at hand right away.

JMP

Wow, I really like the way you’ve thought this through.
You’ve made me wonder if there are any video security cameras in between the place where their scent was lost at the end of the driveway and the place where the boot prints were found. Or, is there a trail on which an ATV could travel that could have carried them from the roadside to the place where the boot prints were found. And if there is such a trail, are there cameras in that trail.
IMO, if they were driven from one point to another, I don’t know why they would have been abandoned and subsequently had the misfortune of falling in a river. If someone drove them from the roadside to that point, it would make sense to me for there to have been a plan to take them somewhere else.
Very interesting and thought provoking!
IMHO

 

[su5ie]

Thank you for posting this, su5ie~it helps to have an actual screenshot "from before" (October 12).

Secondarily to the redacted part on May 2nd, which I agree fits with MBM's mother missing a call that morning from her before Lilly and Jack went missing, the part on the 2nd page about the boot prints has made me think about that again, which I don't remember in such detail, and also never quite made sense to me -- that is, child-sized boot prints were found, but not in a they walked along fashion, but in clumps.

I've often wondered why boot prints would be found in clumps.

There has to be a reason they occurred that way since there was no heavy weather IIRC that could have washed away some lighter prints but not the clumps of presumably deeper ones.

For example:

-- They tread lightly or tiptoed or walked on densely packed grass/weeds that would not leave an impression for aways, and then at just that one point, they both put more weight down or it was muddier/less vegetated or they were weighted down suddenly and/or they jumped up and down or were trying to climb their way out of something like a ditch or puddle (which wasn't mentioned by LE) for some reason.

-- They fell down or were thrown down suddenly to the ground and were making an effort/struggling to get up.

-- They were dropped off of a vehicle or were carried or dragged there before they were dropped onto the ground with enough force to have their boots touch the ground and make a clump of impressions.

IDK, but it's all so weird, to me, anyway, there wouldn't be obvious scents of them or boot prints along the way to that spot, just a clump of 2 different child-sized boot prints.

One scenario under which their scents being lost at the end of the driveway and the clumps of 2 different child-sized boot prints came to be on the pipeline trail IF they were Lilly and Jack's (and why not, IMO, it makes sense if they just went missing and may have "wandered off" and it was a rural location near their home and within walkable distance) is that they were driven off the residential property by an adult and dropped there where the boot prints were found, Temporarily/Instantaneously, then they were either taken elsewhere in another vehicle, or went into the river for some reason or another, conscious or unconscious.

I would have added they could have walked further from there (the clumping area) before they vanished, but IIRC, SAR had scent dogs sniff all around the boot prints and they led nowhere in terms of evidence that if it was Lilly and Jack, that they left the clumping area "on foot".

Not only did LE say this about the clumping area and following up with searches focused there, but that although they had heard other people were out searching with children, so the boot prints could have been some other children's, "they did think it was an out of the way area for people to bring their children to search".

So, the only thing that makes sense with their scents lost at the end of the driveway of their home and possibly their bootprints being found in clumps on the pipeline trail, IMO, is that they were transported and dropped there, for a bit of time before they were transported elsewhere or fell into rushing water and were not able to be found anywhere thereabouts after searching for them with all resources at hand right away.

JMP

Your post just made me think of something.

The area is known for bad cell service , it was stated as recently as Saturdays search by PBMH previously linked article 1 or 2 pages back

In the documents it states that the family arrived home about 3.11pm on the Thurs. Documents linked previously in thread

Does cell service affect location on Google.?

I was under the impression that you needed a network / Internet connection/ signal for Google services to work . I know I'm very familiar with spots in my area were signal would be so bad it cuts off a cellphone call or the very least interference where you get a broken line and the person's voice is breaking up

So could the timestamp of arrival home be mistaken and it is the arrival at a point before cell service loss

 

[Sillybilly]

Members need to STOP posting images with no link to source. Such posts get removed along with ALL responses.

This is causing a lot of extra work for moderators. Hundreds of members post here every single day and provide links. Those who don't provide links face having posts removed AND Time Outs for ignoring one of Websleuths very basic requirements.

It is really very simple ... NO LINK, NO POST.

Post accordingly.

 

[BCSleuth]

Your post just made me think of something.

The area is known for bad cell service , it was stated as recently as Saturdays search by PBMH previously linked article 1 or 2 pages back

In the documents it states that the family arrived home about 3.11pm on the Thurs. Documents linked previously in thread

Does cell service affect location on Google.?

I was under the impression that you needed a network / Internet connection/ signal for Google services to work . I know I'm very familiar with spots in my area were signal would be so bad it cuts off a cellphone call or the very least interference where you get a broken line and the person's voice is breaking up

So could the timestamp of arrival home be mistaken and it is the arrival at a point before cell service loss

All google needs to record your location is your GPS. If it has no network access it will save up the data for when it does have access.

 

[LadyL]

Or adults used the boots to make impressions in the soil, creating false evidence. Now I can’t recall if adult prints were found too but I think so — if so one would think the adult prints could be good identifying evidence. Perhaps they were all casted and are in evidence storage.

no adult prints believed connected to the case were found

 

[su5ie]

All google needs to record your location is your GPS. If it has no network access it will save up the data for when it does have access.

On my android phone I have a location icon if I turn it off it doesn't record location is that the same as GPS

Off

On

 

[BCSleuth]

On my android phone I have a location icon if I turn it off it doesn't record location is that the same as GPS

Your phone can potentially determine your location using cell towers, wi-fi, or via several satellite systems (GPS being one of them). That 'Location' button turns on/off sharing your location with apps.