Lilly & Jack Sullivan: RCMP give case update 
I want to go through this interview that CBC News Nova Scotia had with someone from Nova Scotia RCMP, of course, talking about the disappearance of missing siblings—six-year-old Lily and four-year-old Jack Sullivan—from Lansdown Station in Pictou County.

Some people have asked me whether I’ve seen this interview. I have, and I’m going to comment on it. It’s only like six and a half minutes, so we’re going to go through the whole thing.

It’s not new-new though, even though it was only posted 14 hours ago as I record this. This interview was done when CBC did the rest of the interviews that they’ve been putting out over the last few days. I know this because there was a clip of him talking—a very small clip—in one of CBC’s previous videos. So this is not new-new. The release of this longer interview is new, but the interview itself isn’t.

CBC, for whatever reason, has held this back. Over the last few days, they’ve released the “What Do We Know So Far?” video. They’ve released Grandma’s video—Cody’s mother. They’ve released Daniel’s video, the stepfather. They’ve released Amy Hansen’s video—the search coordinator/stroke manager.

I have covered all of those interviews in previous videos, so go and check those out. I do have quite an extensive playlist now on the disappearance of Lily and Jack Sullivan. So if you’re brand new to this channel and you just found me through one of these videos, please go and check out the playlist. And also, please go and subscribe if you’ve not done so already. It’s completely free! All you have to do is click on the subscribe button like this—boom. That’s it.

Trying to get to 100,000 subscribers by the end of this year. So I’ve got six months left. I think I can do it—if you can help me out. I do know—I can tell from the back end of YouTube—that the majority of people who watch my videos never subscribe. So please do!

All right, so without further ado, let’s get into this interview.

“To be clear, we don’t have evidence to suggest that an abduction took place at this time.”

Is it something you’re still investigating—whether or not they could have been abducted?

“So, we’re exploring all investigative avenues.”

Exploring all investigative avenues… kind of makes me feel like they don’t really know what happened.

Now, there has been some rumbling in my comment section that the parents have been re-interviewed. Daniel and Malia have been re-interviewed. There’s no way I can tell for sure that they have, but given the stuff that’s been coming out over the last few days—from Derwood/Darren, the cousin of Malia’s grandma (so he’s Malia’s first cousin twice removed)—and the stuff Daniel’s been saying in people’s chats, then of course RCMP is going to be monitoring social media. Of course they do. They always do in these cases. And they’re going to know what’s being said. So of course they’re going to go back to the parents and interview them again.

So even though I can’t tell for sure that’s happened, I suspect it has.

“On the morning of May 2nd, approximately 10:00 a.m., RCMP officers received a call about two missing children in Lansdown Station. The information at the time was that they wandered off away from the property. Uh, and I can tell you that our officers got at the scene very quickly and we were monitoring the situation and hopefully finding the children very soon after that.”

So it’s very quickly—officers arrive, and then what? You expected, it sounds like, to find the children quickly—or hoped you would, anyway.

That didn’t happen.

“From experience, you look at missing children—I’ve been involved with a handful of cases since I’ve been with Strategic Communications. Most oftentimes, the children are located very quickly after officers arrive at the scene.”

Right. Yeah, that is absolutely true. Regardless of where you are in the world, the majority of people who are reported missing—children and adults—are located safely.

Given that they live very close to dense woodland, the cops take one look at that scene and think, Well, yeah, they’ve wandered off, especially as there’s a cabin right there that they play in at the edge of the woods. There’s a little fort thing that they play in. So yes, absolutely they would have thought, We’re going to locate these kids very soon—like within a couple of hours.

“That’s our hope every single time—that they’ve wandered off and you can find the children. Because I’m sure, like every officer out there, I’m not on the road currently, but your heart is pounding, the adrenaline is rushing, you’re trying to find those children, right? This case started just like that.”

You’re describing: you thought you’d go there, find them very quickly.

“Absolutely. And our officers were nearby in an ongoing search for a kayaker that had gone missing the day prior. So I was monitoring the situation remotely, and I could tell they were getting there as quickly as possible.”

There are, as you’re aware, many theories out there. Some people think, well, maybe it’s just a tragic accident. Maybe they wandered off into the woods. But you’ve said it’s suspicious. So at the very least, why does the RCMP view this case as suspicious?

“So, every missing person’s investigation is suspicious until it’s proven that it’s not.”

That’s something quite unique to Canada. I cover a lot of cases in the U.S., I cover a lot of cases here in the U.K., and when it’s a missing person and there’s no immediate evidence of a crime, they don’t use the word suspicious. But they seem to in Canada.

The Major Crimes Unit gets involved in missing person cases if that person isn’t found within the first few hours—which I guess is the same everywhere.

I always characterize searching for missing people as two avenues that start off at the same time:

The acute search—officers on the ground, search teams, dog teams, helicopters, drones—all of that thrown at the place where they’re most likely to be in the first few days.

The investigation—interviews with people who were there. So in Lily and Jack’s case, it would be Malia and Daniel, and Daniel’s mother, who lives on the property.

Those initial interviews are done quickly to get a feel for what happened. Officers will often stay with the family—not just to support them, but also to observe reactions.

Other things that are—or should be—done very quickly these days include gathering surveillance video: CCTV, Ring doorbells, trail cameras, dash cam footage. That should all be started immediately.

Now in Lily and Jack’s case, there are very few properties in that area. So I think it was a total misstep that RCMP waited so long to ask the public for dash cam footage. That should’ve been done within the first couple of days.

Because surveillance systems overwrite themselves, and some people just delete their footage. Waiting until the end of May, when Lily and Jack went missing on May 2nd, is a real misstep.

We know from Melissa Scott, a neighbor, that on May 20th, officers came to ask for her trail camera footage. She owns about 40 acres, but it’s 3 miles away. So they’ve gone quite far out. But again, May 20th is a long time after May 2nd. That’s a massive delay.

“If we don’t have that information to say that it’s not suspicious, we have to continue to assume that it is suspicious and access those resources and tools and follow up those tips and find that evidence until we find the people that are missing.”

So you don’t think they were abducted, but you can’t find them. How do two young children just vanish?

“That’s a great question, Kayla. And we are asking the public for tips and information. To date, we’ve received close to 500 tips. We have to follow up on those tips—whether it’s a tip that indicates something happened elsewhere in the province, elsewhere in the country—we follow up on those investigative steps to rule them out.”

And to this date, you haven’t had any from sightings?

“There have been tips, but none from confirmed sightings.”

They also said the children were last seen alive the day before. Daniel says that was May 1st in New Glasgow, at the Highland Square Mall, with Malia, Daniel, and Baby Meadow. So… why is that being kept vague?

They’ve also asked for surveillance video going back to April 28th. Why? Clearly, they’re building a timeline, maybe even tracking vehicles, possibly surveilling the parents.