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

[su5ie]

From a previously linked article re the search by bring them home charity. It stated mbm was asked by the rcmp if items found were belonging to the kids or items of interest. She replied no .so therefore the items were considered useless to the investigation

Firstly is it common for this to happen ,I would have thought that any items gathered would be bagged up and independently tested to see if they had relevance or not . I found it strange that a disappearance considered suspicious ( quoted by rcmp in articles previously linked and recalled from memory ) would allow a person present on the morning to verify items by photograph to see if evidence is relevant or not??

Secondly if they are not being tested or bagged up how would investigators know if they were discarded by a potential perp unknown to the children. ? Or if they had stains or dna belonging to the children or a potential perp invisible to the naked eye .

It just seemed odd considering there is no leads in the investigation for any theory to be plausible atm

 

[Bigditch]

From a previously linked article re the search by bring them home charity. It stated mbm was asked by the rcmp if items found were belonging to the kids or items of interest. She replied no .so therefore the items were considered useless to the investigation

Firstly is it common for this to happen ,I would have thought that any items gathered would be bagged up and independently tested to see if they had relevance or not . I found it strange that a disappearance considered suspicious ( quoted by rcmp in articles previously linked and recalled from memory ) would allow a person present on the morning to verify items by photograph to see if evidence is relevant or not??

Secondly if they are not being tested or bagged up how would investigators know if they were discarded by a potential perp unknown to the children. ? Or if they had stains or dna belonging to the children or a potential perp invisible to the naked eye .

It just seemed odd considering there is no leads in the investigation for any theory to be plausible atm

It is heartbreaking not knowing what happened to those dear little souls.

 

[303gmf]

It is heartbreaking not knowing what happened to those dear little souls.

Agree, Christmas soon and a silent mother…. I’ll never understand

 

[truenorth2025]

There are two things that stand out to me right now. The first is that the step grandma did not actually see the children on the Friday morning. In her interview, she notes that she HEARD them. She emphasizes that she did not hear them go out the gate and down the driveway, insisting she would have heard that. Is it possible that what she heard was a recording of them being played on a device? It would play, then stop, which fits with her not hearing them go out the gate. Secondly, the RCMP statement is that the children were seen with family. It does not clarify if they were seen in a car, or in a store, or actively moving about. There is mention that laundry was done, but the children did not go into the home, they waited outside. So, when were the children last actually seen AND engaged with by someone outside of family?

 

[truenorth2025]

It is my great hope that LE has someone in their sights and just waiting for the last clues to fall into place. It is my belief that the disappearance of these children IS criminal in nature.
IMHO

I wish I had a better understanding of what Are the parameters for defining the disappearance as being criminal in nature Versus not, as per the RCMP.

 

[su5ie]

What is the law in Canada pertaining to the death of a child by misadventure in scenarios where it happens because a parent has
put the child in danger due to irresponsibility

Sample scenarios

Young Child drowns in a bath because parent left them unsupervised

Child ingests medication prescribed or otherwise and ODs

Child dies in a car crash because parent didn't place them in a safety car seat or were not strapped in with a seat belt


Child ingests chemicals that were not secured

Child shoots themselves with a gun not locked away appropriately

Or like we have here children get out an unlocked door into an area that is dangerous, ( rivers , debris , main road while parents slept .

 

[Mauig’ma]

What is the law in Canada pertaining to the death of a child by misadventure in scenarios where it happens because a parent has
put the child in danger due to irresponsibility

Sample scenarios

Young Child drowns in a bath because parent left them unsupervised

Child ingests medication prescribed or otherwise and ODs

Child dies in a car crash because parent didn't place them in a safety car seat or were not strapped in with a seat belt


Child ingests chemicals that were not secured

Child shoots themselves with a gun not locked away appropriately

Or like we have here children get out an unlocked door into an area that is dangerous, ( rivers , debris , main road while parents slept .

Very good questions Su5ie. I too would love the answers to those questions. Hopefully someone on here can give us some insight on their laws.

 

[Twistinginthewind]

Agree, but who is the guilty party? That's the million dollar question. Jmo

IMO:

-- It's someone(s) close to home

-- Their disappearance was planned to occur towards the end of that week when Lilly and Jack were off from school

-- One person was the main perpetrator/offender but others knew it was going down and aided/abetted &/or their silence was paid for &/or they were blackmailed or threatened to keep mum

-- It was criminal as in they were taken from home without willingness and awareness of the plan afoot in some adult's mind

-- It was not random as in no one happened to see them on their own outside and decided then and there to take them, they were at least stalked/targeted ahead of time

-- Someone close to home who disappeared them planned well enough to succeed at hiding evidence &/or throwing up smoking mirrors

-- There is lots of wiggle room in their custodial family's testimony on events & what they say they heard/saw the day or so before MBM called 911 for anything to have occurred at any given hour and their family to be believably none the wiser

 

[FromGermany1]

Very good questions Su5ie. I too would love the answers to those questions. Hopefully someone on here can give us some insight on their laws.

Criminal Code

Federal laws of Canada

laws-lois.justice.gc.ca

218 Every one who unlawfully abandons or exposes a child who is under the age of ten years, so that its life is or is likely to be endangered or its health is or is likely to be permanently injured,

• (a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years; or
• (b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

• R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 218
• 2005, c. 32, s. 12
• 2019, c. 25, s. 75

Previous Version

Criminal Negligence​

Marginal note:Criminal negligence

• 219 (1) Every one is criminally negligent who
  
  • (a) in doing anything, or
  • (b) in omitting to do anything that it is his duty to do,
    shows wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons.
• Definition of duty
  
  (2) For the purposes of this section, duty means a duty imposed by law.

• R.S., c. C-34, s. 202

Marginal note:Causing death by criminal negligence

220 Every person who by criminal negligence causes death to another person is guilty of an indictable offence and liable

• (a) where a firearm is used in the commission of the offence, to imprisonment for life and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of four years; and
• (b) in any other case, to imprisonment for life.

• R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 220
• 1995, c. 39, s. 141

Marginal note:Causing bodily harm by criminal negligence

221 Every person who by criminal negligence causes bodily harm to another person is guilty of

• (a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years; or
• (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

• R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 221
• 2019, c. 25, s. 76

 

[Mauig’ma]

Criminal Code

Federal laws of Canada

laws-lois.justice.gc.ca

218 Every one who unlawfully abandons or exposes a child who is under the age of ten years, so that its life is or is likely to be endangered or its health is or is likely to be permanently injured,

• (a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years; or
• (b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

• R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 218
• 2005, c. 32, s. 12
• 2019, c. 25, s. 75

Previous Version

Criminal Negligence​

Marginal note:Criminal negligence

• 219 (1) Every one is criminally negligent who
  • (a) in doing anything, or
  • (b) in omitting to do anything that it is his duty to do,
    shows wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons.
• Definition of duty
  
  (2) For the purposes of this section, duty means a duty imposed by law.

• R.S., c. C-34, s. 202

Marginal note:Causing death by criminal negligence

220 Every person who by criminal negligence causes death to another person is guilty of an indictable offence and liable

• (a) where a firearm is used in the commission of the offence, to imprisonment for life and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of four years; and
• (b) in any other case, to imprisonment for life.

• R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 220
• 1995, c. 39, s. 141

Marginal note:Causing bodily harm by criminal negligence

221 Every person who by criminal negligence causes bodily harm to another person is guilty of

• (a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years; or
• (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

• R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 221
• 2019, c. 25, s. 76

Thanks for this information