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

  • #2,281
I was thinking about the lost $1,900 in child benefits, purportedly due to DM’s delayed tax filing. This financial situation must have been terribly stressful for MBM, and may have been a source of great tension in their relationship.
This led me to wonder if perhaps it helps explain why MBM was so quick to change her FB relationship status to single. Perhaps she saw it as a way to distance herself from DM in every public way possible, in order to have her child benefits restored. This seems like a more charitable take on her motivations - dire financial situation - as opposed to a desire to be back in the dating pool.
Just a thought, and imo.
Good thought for sure. The sooner she files her taxes and/or changes her status from common-law to single she will likely get more money as well.

I do think the government requires you being separated for min. 6 months though but I'm not 100% on that... but regardless - if I was her, I'd be changing my status asap to meet that criteria as soon as possible if a thing. She might even get back pay from that previous year. Again, I'm unsure on that as well.

I found it all confusing and overwhelming when I was dealing with that kind of paperwork with my baby not many years ago when submitting applications for child care grants (which were absolutely amazing once in place, our family saved a lot of money on child care)! But if you miss one thing - your application is dead in the water. I do think MBM was overwhelmed with it all. MOO

*ETA: edited my wording as I got the requirement wrong - changed single to separated for 6 months.
 
  • #2,282
I agree that the public have been told ,what the parents stated the children were wearing when they disappeared.

Other people in cctv is easily blurred ,we see this all the time when appeals go out on crime TV and news reports so no ones privacy is invaded

You are on the site a lot longer than me and I respect that you may have a better insight into cases where little information has been released.

But do you not think it's slightly unusual that we have not seen cctv of the kids considering in other cases where it is unknown what has happened footage has been released to cast a wider net of possible witnesses and also to get exact images of what the kids were wearing when they disappeared

Maleyha states they wore the exact same clothing to bed that they wore that day so even if it was just to have a visual if anyone came across discarded items of clothing that matched

We see from the likes of other cases cctv is sometimes held back for a reason prehaps a missing person was drunk or for a myriad of other reasons so police don't want potential witnesses not coming forward because of error of judgement and it is released further down the line when all other avenues have been explored and led to nothing ,so I wouldnt rule them out never releasing it and it's never too late if it can potentially aid in the investigation.

I feel you are correct in your judgement that all will be quiet until a potential new ground search or some other breakthrough in the case

Very sad all the same bad enough one child but two and absolutely no trace of anything not a shoe ,a sock, a back pack or bone that indicates a clear hypothesis
Good points on wondering regarding possible reasons why, in the case of Lilly and Jack's disappearance, LE hasn't released any footage they have showing the family in town the day before = last documented "proof of life" including what they were wearing to share that visual with the public versus not saying anything about their clothing/attire other than what their parents later stated after they disappeared.

Regardless of how long ago it was and whether it would have been helpful at the time or still could be,
it's worth mulling over, IMOO, e.g., if the CCTV footage perhaps wasn't shared publicly because "the family" and their movements to & from the store to their vehicle were:

-- fuzzy with not enough clarity to see what they were wearing

Or

-- only glimpses of Lilly and Jack were captured as they were essentially blocked from view by their parents carrying Willow & shopping bags with them behind them if they went into the store

Or

-- because they were left in the car while their parents & toddler half sister went inside to shop alone, and what they were wearing wasn't visible in the vehicle (which coincides with the store clerk who said they only heard children in the car).
 
  • #2,283
That is a great point.

They had been living in anonymity.

The disappearance of the children brought immediate scrutiny.

Perhaps it was a move to erase that relationship for benefit reasons.
 
  • #2,284
MODNOTE:
The Canadian Gothic is not normally an approved source, so discussion on anything else over there is on a case by case basis. This link is allowed only because it has the released documents regarding the search for Jack and Lilly. You can also find this link over on the Media page for Jack and Lilly, so we can refer back to there. This is for discussion of the documents only.

Jack and Lilly Media Thread on Websleuths


ETA: Thank you @su5ie for the link
And thank you to the poster who kindly provided the link to me a couple of months back (you know who you are ) 🥰
 
Last edited:
  • #2,285
That is a great point.

They had been living in anonymity.

The disappearance of the children brought immediate scrutiny.

Perhaps it was a move to erase that relationship for benefit reasons.
Personally, I question having that clarity of mind to be thinking of the paperwork involved in applying for benefits in mbms own right and initiating the process 24 hours after two of your children go missing

In fair respect I can see a person close to her taking the proverbial reins and doing that thinking for her

When I look at the case as a whole and I frame my thought process with no poi and a wandering

The one thing that bugs me is mbm leaving so soon , grant it LE or family may have advised her to leave or end the relationship ASAP

But this presents two avenues of thought for me
( 1) Self preservation in other words siezing the opportunity to cut the cord on an abusive relationship

(2) Leaving search area completely to never return because you have accepted your kids are not returning alive whether because you know they are dead at the hands of someone else or you guess they have succumbed to the elements at that stage

Bearing in mind that at that intial stage mbm had been singing the praises of DM in her statements to the investigation officer she gave the statement to ( in documents) so I highly doubt LE advised her to leave DM at that stage if they did at any point between then and now

Advice may have been to remove meadow from a live search and rescue and a live investigation in and around the home . In this instance mbm chose to leave with her instead of entrusting a family member to take her home with them . While she remained on site particularly for the first 48 to 72 hours as children can be known to survive for this amount of time or longer in the wilderness

A family representative of hers is not reported as remaining on site either

Janie is reported to have told the family to leave her property but janie had no control over family remaining at the search station or within the general confines of public space

so it is something that plays on my mind whether reasons are innocent or not
 
  • #2,286
Personally, I question having that clarity of mind to be thinking of the paperwork involved in applying for benefits in mbms own right and initiating the process 24 hours after two of your children go missing

In fair respect I can see a person close to her taking the proverbial reins and doing that thinking for her

When I look at the case as a whole and I frame my thought process with no poi and a wandering

The one thing that bugs me is mbm leaving so soon , grant it LE or family may have advised her to leave or end the relationship ASAP

But this presents two avenues of thought for me
( 1) Self preservation in other words siezing the opportunity to cut the cord on an abusive relationship

(2) Leaving search area completely to never return because you have accepted your kids are not returning alive whether because you know they are dead at the hands of someone else or you guess they have succumbed to the elements at that stage

Bearing in mind that at that intial stage mbm had been singing the praises of DM in her statements to the investigation officer she gave the statement to ( in documents) so I highly doubt LE advised her to leave DM at that stage if they did at any point between then and now

Advice may have been to remove meadow from a live search and rescue and a live investigation in and around the home . In this instance mbm chose to leave with her instead of entrusting a family member to take her home with them . While she remained on site particularly for the first 48 to 72 hours as children can be known to survive for this amount of time or longer in the wilderness

A family representative of hers is not reported as remaining on site either

Janie is reported to have told the family to leave her property but janie had no control over family remaining at the search station or within the general confines of public space

so it is something that plays on my mind whether reasons are innocent or not
I am guessing that child protective services told her that Meadow needed to be out of the house (possibly safety issues noted in the house Ex mold?) and/or away from the search scene- loud noises, helicopters etc.
 
  • #2,287
I am guessing that child protective services told her that Meadow needed to be out of the house (possibly safety issues noted in the house Ex mold?) and/or away from the search scene- loud noises, helicopters etc.
Yes and i understand that completely, the child should have and was removed from the home and search area probably for her wellbeing due to numerous valid reasoning

Given the majority of innocent, distraught parents remain at the search site I don't feel mbm leaving for the precieved reasons excuses the fact that this was an odd thing to do for mbm .

Prehaps the behaviour is a statical outlier not the norm . Imo moo
 
  • #2,288
Screenshot_20251231_194910_ChatGPT.webp
 
  • #2,289

Interesting article, not to say this case is on the verge of being ‘resolved’. I wondered why RCMP Staff Sgt McCamon used that word? To me it usually means to come to some kind of mutual agreement or solution, not quite the same as to ‘solve’ a case involving missing children.

But it’s good news that he says they are making progress in the direction the investigation is going however it’s going to take time. They must do things by the book (Cdn Charter of Rights and Freedoms) especially if charges are eventually laid.

All in all he’s not revealing much of anything but it’s good to know the case is not collecting dust somewhere on the shelf.
 
  • #2,290
Thank you misty ,need time to digest all that is in the article and then I will comment
 
  • #2,291
.
Thank you for sharing, interesting read. Thing that stands out to me is I believe this may be the first time RCMP does not include a mention of “no evidence of criminality” or “not believed to be criminal in nature”. I may be wrong or reading into it too much, but the tone shift is notable IMO. All MOO

ETA- would be interested in opinions from those who are more familiar with RCMP
 
Last edited:
  • #2,292

Interesting article, not to say this case is on the verge of being ‘resolved’. I wondered why RCMP Staff Sgt McCamon used that word? To me it usually means to come to some kind of mutual agreement or solution, not quite the same as to ‘solve’ a case involving missing children.

But it’s good news that he says they are making progress in the direction the investigation is going however it’s going to take time. They must do things by the book (Cdn Charter of Rights and Freedoms) especially if charges are eventually laid.

All in all he’s not revealing much of anything but it’s good to know the case is not collecting dust somewhere on the shelf.

Thanks for posting that. It sounds like the investigation is leading somewhere, imo. He said so many are concerned for the missing children because it’s ‘ a very fundamental wrong’, and I think that’s such an apt description.

He said they’re making headway with what they’re finding out in the investigation. That makes it sound more complicated than two children wandering off, imo. Unless more experts have weighed in on the complex terrain and how the children could have disappeared despite the intensive search. (For example, the currents and wave action in a body of water within the search area.)

A few here pointed out that it doesn’t make sense for Lilly to have been out playing in the backyard with her backpack, which seems like it was meant for school. (But we don’t know.)

The backyard and driveway was muddy dirt, so I wouldn’t think they’d be allowed to play with ‘good’ items there, imo. Especially with no washing machine at home. So why did she take it? (And possibly her old blanket?)

I’ve also wondered if DM’s other children helped to fill in some of the blanks.

Also, I’m curious if the police tracked down the children with the same boots as Lilly’s to rule out if they made the prints on the pipeline trail. (Although I don’t think we know for 100% that it was made by her boots.)
 
  • #2,293
Thanks for posting that. It sounds like the investigation is leading somewhere, imo. He said so many are concerned for the missing children because it’s ‘ a very fundamental wrong’, and I think that’s such an apt description.

He said they’re making headway with what they’re finding out in the investigation. That makes it sound more complicated than two children wandering off, imo. Unless more experts have weighed in on the complex terrain and how the children could have disappeared despite the intensive search. (For example, the currents and wave action in a body of water within the search area.)

A few here pointed out that it doesn’t make sense for Lilly to have been out playing in the backyard with her backpack, which seems like it was meant for school. (But we don’t know.)

The backyard and driveway was muddy dirt, so I wouldn’t think they’d be allowed to play with ‘good’ items there, imo. Especially with no washing machine at home. So why did she take it? (And possibly her old blanket?)

I’ve also wondered if DM’s other children helped to fill in some of the blanks.

Also, I’m curious if the police tracked down the children with the same boots as Lilly’s to rule out if they made the prints on the pipeline trail. (Although I don’t think we know for 100% that it was made by her boots.)
On the topic of the boots, IIRC both kids were wearing George (Walmart) brand boots, so unfortunately not something with a distinctive sole pattern that could be more definitively matched to a print
 
  • #2,294
Thanks for posting that. It sounds like the investigation is leading somewhere, imo. He said so many are concerned for the missing children because it’s ‘ a very fundamental wrong’, and I think that’s such an apt description.

He said they’re making headway with what they’re finding out in the investigation. That makes it sound more complicated than two children wandering off, imo. Unless more experts have weighed in on the complex terrain and how the children could have disappeared despite the intensive search. (For example, the currents and wave action in a body of water within the search area.)

A few here pointed out that it doesn’t make sense for Lilly to have been out playing in the backyard with her backpack, which seems like it was meant for school. (But we don’t know.)

The backyard and driveway was muddy dirt, so I wouldn’t think they’d be allowed to play with ‘good’ items there, imo. Especially with no washing machine at home. So why did she take it? (And possibly her old blanket?)

I’ve also wondered if DM’s other children helped to fill in some of the blanks.

Also, I’m curious if the police tracked down the children with the same boots as Lilly’s to rule out if they made the prints on the pipeline trail. (Although I don’t think we know for 100% that it was made by her boots.)
The backpack is a big question mark for me. In an interview with Drunk Turkey (?)/ Dt on YouTube, Daniel says the back pack was Lilly’s travel back pack ex if she was going to her grandma’s Cindy. Hunter s crime also plays this clip in a video montage. In the first few days coverage, DM says she has it with her (Presumably because it is not in the trailer?]) and says it is white (or cream coloured) but it is likely dirty by now. How does/ will the backpack Fit into what has happened or where the kids are? What is the truth of the backpack? Or the blanket, for that matter? Odd.
 
  • #2,295
Yes and i understand that completely, the child should have and was removed from the home and search area probably for her wellbeing due to numerous valid reasoning

Given the majority of innocent, distraught parents remain at the search site I don't feel mbm leaving for the precieved reasons excuses the fact that this was an odd thing to do for mbm .

Prehaps the behaviour is a statical outlier not the norm . Imo moo
Yes, agree! I actually think it’s a primal instinct to stay and or revisit the place of separation or last sighting when separated from a loved one. I wonder if Meadow had never stayed with anyone else at all? But to leave and never go back. That gives me chills.
 
  • #2,296
The backpack is a big question mark for me. In an interview with Drunk Turkey (?)/ Dt on YouTube, Daniel says the back pack was Lilly’s travel back pack ex if she was going to her grandma’s Cindy. Hunter s crime also plays this clip in a video montage. In the first few days coverage, DM says she has it with her (Presumably because it is not in the trailer?]) and says it is white (or cream coloured) but it is likely dirty by now. How does/ will the backpack Fit into what has happened or where the kids are? What is the truth of the backpack? Or the blanket, for that matter? Odd.
Regarding the backpack, my earliest thoughts were based mostly on my real life experiences in both social service and justice work. This is not an accusation as we just won't know until this case is resolved. This is just a "possibility". Among meth users and other drugs, it was quite common for the drugs to be carried either in the diapers of infants or in children's possessions so as to conceal them, to provide a sort of camouflage, and to also avoid being searched. Things like diaper bags and little kids backpacks were used to carry drugs when they were being sold or distributed.

Children unfortunaely sometimes died from accidental ingestion or exposure, some from accidentally broken bags of deadly powders like fentanyl or heroin. Sometimes the drugs were concealed in the diaper bag or kids backpack further camoflaged in a small stuffed animal or toy of some kind. Kids were often taken along on distribution runs for the perceived safety from suspicion factor they lend. Who would suspect a struggling and harried young mother and/or father with 2 or 3 little ones in tow? Every now and then, some of the hidden drugs in toys or stuffed animals were forgotten until the kids accidentally found them later.

Its very easy to meet someone in, say, a parking lot at a grocery store, chat while standing outside the car at the back window with kids inside, and eventually at the right moment, nonchalantly reach in the window into the diaper bag or backpack and pull out something to slip in the other person's palm. They know how to do this very carefully and very subtly when no one is paying attention because it all looks so innocent.

Having an awareness of the drug culture the way I do, I have watched a number of drug handoffs right out in the open when the dealers had no clue they were observed. One was a motorcyclist who pulled up to the curb in front of the restaurant where I had a table at the front window, look concealingly "surprised" to see an "old friend" walk up and extended his hand for a hearty handshake, then put his helmet right back on, pulledba glove over his "palm candy" cranked his bike up and took right off again. There were people all around; no one even noticed the palm pass off. Happened all the time in that university party district.

I'm not convinced Jack and Lilly died in a drug-related snafu but I AM all too aware of the possibilities and the elements in this situation that keep the possibility open until we get solid assurance it is off the table.

Another element to consider is that, in cases with a drug element involvement, investigations "go quiet" and very often take a lot of time as the web or chain of manufacture to possession is surveilled, sometimes requiring insertion of undercovers that take time to develop.

That backpack sticks in my mind. Yes, some kids are so attached they'd even take it outside playing in the mud and rain. But if that backpack ever held drugs and Lilly was used as a camoflage mule, she may have reached an age to be aware of what was going on. And IF it was contaminated by a busted package of deadly toxic drugs, it had to be gotten rid of, maybe the boots too if vomiting was involved. Residues would have been damning. It lends a new look at DM sitting in the car those long hours of doing laundry. How many 'friends' drove by and stopped for a short hiya hiya (hand off) during those hours? Most dealers with goods in their cars will not leave them unattended. They're usually guarded very closely. And having the kids along helps the look of innocence.

And once again, some kids sadly died from inhaling the toxic fumes meth cooking produces. Meth cooking these days is often done in an older car while moving slowly in the middle of the night to conceal and disperse the fumes. Because the vehicles were then quite stinky with a very noxious unpleasant and very distinguished smell, these older "junked" cars were often then parked in the "back 40" or behind the shed, or out of the way place and made to look intentionally as though they couldn't be used and were junked. No one really saw them run because they were generally only run in the middle of the night when everyone else was sleeping (except those who can't sleep due to loud engine noises in the middle of the night going back and forth?)

The more a vehicle is used to cook meth, the more toxic and dangerous it becomes. Its particularly hazardous to young tender moist lungs that absorb aromatics rapidly. Sometimes a spontaneous combustion happens without warning and fire and flame create smoke thats very highly toxic and quickly. Articles taken into evidence can be tested for residues so clothing, backpacks, boots, blankets, stuffed animals, all would need to be disappeared. If a combustion happened, say, in a driveway, residues would need to be widely distributed, maybe requiring a shovel, rake, water, and camoflaging decoys. Then removal of the vehicle to another location titled to a different owner, especially one where it can be considered to be "junked" and off limits.

I truly hope Jack and Lilly are off having the best time of their lives in safety and pure nurturing love. ~♡~ If so, I hope they never return again to this place full of potential hazards. And, if DM is innocent of any wrongdoing, I do wish him all the strength and love he needs to fully recover from any and all monsters that are beating at his door and this can be a new beginning for him.
 
Last edited:
  • #2,297
The backpack is a big question mark for me. In an interview with Drunk Turkey (?)/ Dt on YouTube, Daniel says the back pack was Lilly’s travel back pack ex if she was going to her grandma’s Cindy. Hunter s crime also plays this clip in a video montage. In the first few days coverage, DM says she has it with her (Presumably because it is not in the trailer?]) and says it is white (or cream coloured) but it is likely dirty by now. How does/ will the backpack Fit into what has happened or where the kids are? What is the truth of the backpack? Or the blanket, for that matter? Odd.
Every time I read about the backpack, I can't help but thinking of a similar aged family member I know. It isn't the easiest thing to put a backpack on for a six-year-old, or to take the time to do so IMO. I don't know that a child that age would want to bother with it if just going outside to play, or to explore in the woods.
 
  • #2,298
Well this is encouraging...



Makes you wonder whether they know something or not, though. Facts or just optimism?

Source: What happened to Jack and Lilly? Grandmother says she's lost hope missing N.S. kids are still alive



“I’ve got 25 years on (the force) and I absolutely expect to solve this before I retire,” Staff-Sgt. Rob McCamon, the officer in charge of Major Crime and Behavioural Sciences in Nova Scotia, said in an interview.

“This file will get solved long before that.”

He urged anyone with information about the case to contact investigators.

“Deep down, I believe there are people somewhere out there that may have information that will help us,” McCamon said.


It’s unacceptable for two kids to go missing and the RCMP not to find answers, he said. “We’re not going to stop until we do.”
Article content
The RCMP are confident they will solve the case.



The 'bolded by me' portion above^^. is very interesting. The Officer-in-charge believes that there are people 'out there' who have information that will help him solve this case.

To me, it sounds like he thinks there is some kind of foul play?
 
  • #2,299
I cannot access the article. Can someone sum it up for me. Thank you.
Excerpts:
[ I posted what the officer in charge said in post just upthread]


Here is what paternal Grandmother said:


Gray used to see a lot of the children, even after their mother split from her son Cody Sullivan, their biological father, more than three years back.
“The whole family was into their lives when her and my son were together; there were many visits,” she said.
“Once they split up, Malehya would bring the kids here just about every two weeks.”

Those visits continued for about a year after the breakup.

“And on one of the last visits, she stated that she had met somebody,” Gray said. “When she met Daniel she told us that he was uncomfortable with her coming here. So right away we said, ‘Well, why don’t you bring him along?’”

Brooks-Murray promised she’d mention it to him, Gray said. “But the next time she came, she stated that it is just not working out for her coming here.

For a time, Gray visited Lilly and Jack in the Truro area, where they were staying with their mother’s family.

“That worked out good for a while,” Gray said.

But in the fall Jack turned three, Gray said when she took him gifts and Halloween treats for both kids, something felt off. “Malehya seemed to be in a rush to hurry our visit.”

After about a year in Truro, Lilly, Jack, their mom and her new partner moved to Lansdowne Station.

“It was Daniel’s mother that gave them her big trailer and she moved into an RV,” Gray said.

“When Malehya told me she was moving to Pictou (County), she told me that his mother had a farm … and right away, I was picturing fields, like farmland. And I told her that sounded awesome. The kids would have a big yard to play in. That was wonderful.”

They “maintained light contact through Facebook,” Gray said.

Before Lilly’s birthday this past March, Gray spoke with Brooks-Murray about sending money to buy a gift for the girl. “I said, ‘I just want you to know that don’t think that we don’t love them because we think about them all the time.’ She said, ‘Look, I was thinking we’re probably going to come by for a visit.’ And I was ecstatic. I told her, ‘We can’t wait.’”

That visit never took place.

When Gray heard Malehya was pregnant with Martell’s child, she chalked up the lack of a visit to that.

“I congratulated her,” Gray said. “And I figured, okay, so this must be why it’s been a little distant right now, because, I mean, she’s pregnant. And I made up excuses about why she was too busy.”

At first, in the photos of Jack and Lilly their mom posted on social media, “they looked well cared for,” Gray said.

“They were happy and I just told myself it was okay if I didn’t see them because they’re living a good life.”

After the baby was born, the photos their mom posted of Jack and Lilly started to dwindle, Gray said.

.....SNIPPED>>>>>>


“Malehya told me on Saturday (the day after Jack and Lilly vanished) that he’s been in the woods since the kids went missing, that he’s been scouring the woods ever since,” Gray said.

The mobile home where they were living sits along a gravel road surrounded by dense woods.

“The woods is a giant maze that if you’re not crawling under something, you have to climb over it,” she said.

“There was no way whatsoever that those kids … would want to do that, the woods were that bad.”

The little girl did not like bugs, said her grandmother. “Lilly had that princess thing about her even as a baby. So, I could not see her wanting to go there at all.”

Jack was curious, and did like bugs, Gray said. “But from all indications, from all the people on the property, he did not like the woods because he couldn’t walk and he kept tripping up and falling. So that tells me these kids would not go into the woods.”
 
  • #2,300
I do find it odd that the CCTV footage was never shown to the public, especially if that's the last known sighting of them? By MBM's own admission, they went to bed in the same clothes they wore that day, and she wasn't sure if they changed out of them the morning they disappeared. Doesn't that mean there's a fair chance they disappeared in the same clothes they were wearing in the video footage then?
If they had changed out of them, wouldn't they be left on their bed or on the floor or in a hamper ? I'd think she could have looked for them. It's a small trailer, not many places the dirty clothes could be.
 

Guardians Monthly Goal

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
173
Guests online
1,716
Total visitors
1,889

Forum statistics

Threads
636,841
Messages
18,705,002
Members
243,940
Latest member
chriscantlose
Back
Top