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

[su5ie]

Thats fine. Middle of night here and I was half asleep so basically couldnt believe my eyes lol.

No worries just giving a friendly point in the right direction

 

[tlcya]

Extended interview with Daniel just released

7:42 mark of the video interview DM answers questions about allegations around his use of drugs. I didn't have any drugs. If I had, Major Crimes would have charged me. There were no drugs at the house. Not a dealer, don't owe drug debts. He wants to make sure to impress upon the listeners that there is no evidence he was on drugs that night. But doesn't say anything like, I haven't used drugs in months or weeks or days. Just there was no party I had no drugs on me and LE didn't find any drugs in the house.

MOO I am listening not just to what he says but what does NOT say.

 

[agent902]

On the morning of May 2, 2025, Brooks-Murray called 911 to report that Lilly, 6, and Jack, then 4, had gone missing from the rural home she shared with her boyfriend, Daniel Martell, and their baby daughter.

If DM is (was) responsible for everything, as he claims, why didn't HE call 911? He's so articulate and loves to talk. It's strange that he, as the man of the house, didn't call them. MOO

"We didn't see them anywhere. And Malehya said, should I call 911? And I said, well, just wait one second. I ran up in the woods to the kids. They have cabins up in the woods. It’s about, I don't know, 100 feet up in the woods. Ran up there, ran right back down, which only took me like 30 seconds." - Daniel Martell, transcribed quote

https://www.cbc.ca/radio/thecurrent/friday-july-18-2025-episode-transcript-1.7588759

Think about that.

-Should we call 911?

-No, wait. Let me go.... ???

Really?

Did it only take 30 seconds?

SHE made the 911 call. And did it in the moments he ran off. After telling her to wait. Her instinct knew the call needed to be made, despite his urge to wait. I think there may even have been an urgency to call while he wasn't right there.

But doesn't say anything like, I haven't used drugs in months or weeks or days.

He can't deny what he's already publicly admitted to The Globe and Mail:

(...) interviews with The Globe that he’s never struggled with drugs and does not have a drug problem. Despite that, he has admitted to taking methamphetamines and “pretty much everything.”

There's another "I do it a lot, but it's not a *problem*" type similar quote in some of the unmentionable sources and their loosely vetted screengrabs.

 

[BCSleuth]

"We didn't see them anywhere. And Malehya said, should I call 911? And I said, well, just wait one second. I ran up in the woods to the kids. They have cabins up in the woods. It’s about, I don't know, 100 feet up in the woods. Ran up there, ran right back down, which only took me like 30 seconds." - Daniel Martell, transcribed quote

[...]

So what are you getting at? She phoned 911 too quickly or not quickly enough?

And there is a huge difference between trying a drug and having a drug problem.

 

[LadyL]

Depending what time the search dogs were brought to the property there may’ve been multiple people beforehand including police officers and family members frantically going to and fro which destroyed the scent trial.

not to mention they're not infallable

 

[Twistinginthewind]

Just catching up; someone said a few pages back that we now know why MBM was crying after she talked to law enforcement in the car the morning the children were reported as missing. I couldn't find that reason. Can someone fill me in please? Tia.

<RSBM>

There's this reason/explanation according to MBM's friend in this week's new MSM article:

"Robinson said they all went to the nearby command centre for a briefing on the search.

As she reviewed maps of the large swaths of woods that crews had already covered — with no trace of Lilly and Jack — Brooks-Murray handed off her baby to a loved one because she was having a panic attack and received medical attention, said Robinson.

She would never return to the Martell property.

“We weren't leaving her there,” said Robinson. “After learning everything … we did, and seeing the condition that [the baby] was living in, it just wasn't the proper fit.” "

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/lilly-jack-sullivan-disappearance-malehya-brooks-murray-9.7071768

 

[TMich6811]

So what are you getting at? She phoned 911 too quickly or not quickly enough?

And there is a huge difference between trying a drug and having a drug problem.

I think previous poster was saying that she didn’t call because he said to wait but then called the moment he left because she was safe to

imo Most people don’t just try meth. It’s not a casual have fun drug

 

[Fabled Automatic]

7:42 mark of the video interview DM answers questions about allegations around his use of drugs. I didn't have any drugs. If I had, Major Crimes would have charged me. There were no drugs at the house. Not a dealer, don't owe drug debts. He wants to make sure to impress upon the listeners that there is no evidence he was on drugs that night. But doesn't say anything like, I haven't used drugs in months or weeks or days. Just there was no party I had no drugs on me and LE didn't find any drugs in the house.

MOO I am listening not just to what he says but what does NOT say.

He's stated that he attends some sort of Anon type meetings up to three times a week. I guess he knows enough to not pretend he's always been a super clean living guy. But I do wonder when he started attending these alleged meetings. He never indicated if it was before or after the kids went missing. Like the comment you mentioned, his wording left the timeline unaddressed.

 

[su5ie]

He's stated that he attends some sort of Anon type meetings up to three times a week. I guess he knows enough to not pretend he's always been a super clean living guy. But I do wonder when he started attending these alleged meetings. He never indicated if it was before or after the kids went missing. Like the comment you mentioned, his wording left the timeline unaddressed.

After , he states in one of his interviews buried in pages and pages back that he was doing an anger management course , parenting course and attending narcotics anonymous to clear his name for cps .

At the time this was revealed a number of posters and I debated if casual occasional drug use would warrant attending NA or would only addicts with uncontrollable drug use attend .

While DM didn't exactly state a specific timing of his attendance it was stated in relation to him proving his innocence and willingness to cooperate so I surmised from the context that he had only just begun these courses and attending NA. Which would therefore be after the kids went missing but maybe other posters may recall differently

 

[Twistinginthewind]

Going back to this MSM article from mid-January (BBM):

MSN

"Newly unsealed court documents revealed allegations of abuse in the months leading up to the disappearance of Jack and Lilly Sullivan, two Nova Scotia siblings missing since May 2025, multiple news outlets reported.

Malehya Brooks-Murray, the mother of the children, accused their stepfather Daniel Martell of being physically abusive toward her on multiple occasions, according to records [sic] cited by Global News."

If DM was abusive to his intimate partner -- as MBM alluded to previously and has now claimed and been documented in court

And DM has now been arrested for and charged with assault, forcible confinement and sexual assault, though his guilt has yet to be decided in a court of law, of course

And MBM was the one he abused and it occurred on Gairloch Rd and presumably at home and Lilly and Jack were witnesses to it or exposed to his abuse...

Regarding this aspect on the backstory of the case of Lilly and Jack's disappearance -- the circumstances of their home life before they went missing:

Referencing the following that is interesting to learn about recent research in Canada regarding intimate partner violence (IPV), which states children's exposure to IPV can be considered as "child maltreatment" (BBM).

Research Snapshot: Children’s Exposure to Intimate Partner Violence as Child Maltreatment - Vanier

The Vanier Institute of the Family is a national, independent, think tankdedicated to understanding families and family life in Canada.

vanierinstitute.ca

"Research Snapshot: Children’s Exposure to Intimate Partner Violence as Child Maltreatment

Recent data show that the most common type of substantiated child maltreatment in Canada was children’s exposure to intimate partner violence.

Summary text:
What this research is about
Compared with the U.S. and Australia, Canada has the highest rate of child maltreatment investigations and substantiation (confirmed cases). In 2019, the most common type of substantiated child maltreatment in Canada was children's exposure to intimate partner violence (IPV) .... where a child is exposed to violence between two intimate partners, at least one of whom is the child's caregiver. Exposure to IPV can take the form of direct witness of physical violence, indirect exposure to physical violence, or exposure to emotional violence.
....
What you need to know
In 2019, cases of child maltreatment in Canada that were most likely to be substantiated (confirmed) involved children's exposure to intimate partner violence (IPV). This type of child maltreatment has detrimental effects on the development and wellbeing of children.
....
Investigations involving children's exposure to IPV were six times more likely to be substantiated than other types of investigations. However, the majority of these cases were not transferred to receive ongoing child welfare services.
....
What the researchers found
....
Compared with other types of maltreatment investigations, cases of exposure to IPV were more likely to involve young children aged 0-3 years, caregivers with alcohol problems, families with few social supports, and households whose income was mainly from full-time work. In contrast, these cases were less likely to involve children with at least one child functioning concern. Several factors influenced the decision to transfer a case to child welfare services. These factors included the child's age and ethnicity (e.g., being Indigenous); the presence of at least one child functioning concern; caregivers with alcohol/problems or mental health concerns; families with few social supports; caregivers running out of money for basic necessities; and housing concerns.