Do you feel as if the finger has been pointed towards you and Daniel?
Yes, I do, because I live on the property. Come on.

Do you think your son had anything to do with the disappearance of Jack and Lily?
No, I don’t believe Daniel had anything to do with the disappearance of Jack and Lily. A heart don’t lie, and my heart is telling me that my kid did not have nothing to do with this. And I had nothing to do with this.

That’s the step-grandmother of missing Nova Scotian children, Lily and Jack Sullivan.
And I actually agree with her.
I think she and her son didn’t have nothing to do with the kids’ disappearance.

Translation: I think they were both either involved or at least withholding information.

So, today’s video—let’s watch her interview with CBC and count the red flags.
I’m Deception Detective, an attorney trained in statement analysis. This channel exposes lies and manipulation. So if that’s your thing, hit subscribe for exclusive videos, early access, and other cool perks.
Join the channel—link in the description.

Whether you’re new to this case or you’ve binge-watched my entire playlist about it, you might not be up to date with the latest twists and turns in the investigation.

So before we grab our deception decks and analyze Janie, here’s a quick recap.

It’s been two and a half months since the two young children disappeared.
They were last seen in May and were believed to have wandered into the woods behind their home.

A tremendous amount of careful, deliberate investigative work is underway—by people here at home and in other parts of Canada.

Despite extensive searches—on foot, by helicopter, with dogs and drones—crews found nothing.
No footprints.

No clothing.
No trace of where the children may have gone.

Right now, there are more than 800 tasks associated with this investigation.

The investigation has grown into one of the largest in Nova Scotia RCMP history, with over 600 tips from across Canada and beyond, and 5,000 video files currently under review.

Surveillance cameras.
Trail cams.
Doorbell cameras.

We did a further request for information in a news release to the public a little bit later in May.

Rumors have been swirling ever since the kids went missing.
And with so little information being shared, it’s only added fuel to the fire—leading many to believe them.

“Trying not to follow the rumors, but you know… they’re getting more grounded, the rumors, because of the fact that the RCMP found nothing.”

And while they say the investigation is moving forward under the Missing Persons Act, many in the community feel like they’re standing still.

“Most people will say to me that the best hope is if somebody did take those little… I mean, if those kids were in the woods, I think most people in Pictou County now are thinking they would have found something. They would have found a shred of clothes. They would have found anything.”

So far, 60 people have been interviewed.
Some have undergone polygraph testing.
And one item found during the search is now undergoing forensic analysis—including a pink blanket that officers seized on Landsdown Road.

They’re also submitting judicial authorizations to seize and examine materials and devices that may provide information useful to the investigation.

So that’s the latest.
And the important thing for this video, at least, is that it’s been two and a half months—and this is the first time the step-grandmother, Janie McKenzie, has done an interview.

When the kids first went missing:

She didn’t come forward to show photos of them to the news, in case anyone might recognize them.

She didn’t come forward to beg any potential kidnappers who might have them.

She didn’t even come forward to chastise the police and searchers when they stopped searching for them after just six days early on in the investigation.

No—for her, at least, it was only worth coming forward after the police doubled down on their investigation, started seizing additional electronics, and really scrutinized that blanket they found in the area—which, if this were all a big cover-up hoax, as I think it is, was probably placed there by her son.

Alright, without further ado—let’s watch.

“So, it’s the morning of May 2nd. Take me through what happened.”
“Okay. I was up at 6:00, sat in there and had my tea, and then on Facebook.
7:00—I get up, come over here, fed my chickens. [laughter]
My brother Ron called me at 8:48 and asked me if I wanted to go to town with him.
I said no. I said I’m staying home. I said I’m going back to bed.
Okay. I went and I laid down.
Next thing you know, my dog started barking…”

As I said in the intro—I think that Janie McKenzie and her son Daniel, at the very least, are withholding information.

And one reason I think that is because she just covered the three most important hours in the timeline—the time when the kids apparently went missing—in just 30 seconds.

She whisked us from waking up at 6:00 a.m. to laying back down around 9:00.
And all I know is that she had tea, went on Facebook, and fed her chickens.
What else happened?

This degree of vagueness—especially when someone’s describing something really important, like the time when the kids either ran away or got kidnapped, and where every single detail matters—is a red flag.

If I were the journalist there interviewing her, I’d definitely drill down into the parts that she skipped over.

For example: It didn’t take an hour and a half to feed the chickens.
Maybe the answer would be innocuous and totally make sense.
Or maybe it would compel her to either reveal something she didn’t want to disclose—or have to fabricate details to fill in the time, which would make it easier for us to catch her in a contradiction or a lie.

Alright—let’s keep watching.

“I went and I laid down. Next thing you know, my dog started barking, and the kids were out in the yard.
Now, you can see there’s two swings where the kids play.
My bedroom is right there—I heard the kids. This is where the kids’ swings are. This is where they always played.
And so, that’s where—that’s where I heard them. And I can hear everything in that trailer.
If two kids get out of a fence—and Jack and Lily are all the time yelling, especially Lily:
‘Come on, Jackie! Come on, Jackie! Let’s go, Jackie! Let’s go, Jackie!’

It’s all I hear out here.
When the kids get out of the fence and come out through here, I would have heard them yelling, ‘Come on, Jackie! Let’s go, Jackie! Let’s go.’
I didn’t hear anything.
The next thing I heard is I heard Daniel yelling.
He was yelling for Jack and Lily.
I didn’t get up, because I thought he was yelling for Jack and Lily to get in the house.
So the next thing you know, I came out of the trailer after I heard Daniel—about, I’d say, 10 minutes after I heard him—I come out of the trailer.
I opened up the door, was standing here.
Maleia was standing right here with Meadow on her hip.
And I come out and I said, ‘What’s up?’
She said…”

“Next thing you know, the dog was barking.
All of a sudden, I heard Daniel screaming.
About 10 minutes later, I went outside.”

These are all examples of temporal lacuna—or skips through time.
Liars often use them, just like they use vagueness, to avoid technically lying.

I’m not saying that’s necessarily what Janie is doing here—but it would be very easy to omit any incriminating conversation she had with Daniel or Maleia, or anything incriminating she saw going on in the backyard, by simply skipping over it with a temporal void.

The cure for that? Ask questions strategically—which I covered in depth in my video “It’s Not Happening,” earlier in this series. I’ll put it on the end card.

Let’s keep watching.

“Maleia was standing right here with Meadow on her hip, and I come out and I said, ‘What’s up?’
She said, ‘Jack and Lily are missing.’
I said, ‘How long?’
She said, ‘About 20 minutes.’
I closed the door, got my boots on, came out here, ran up in the woods—just right up here.
The kids have a little fort they made out of sticks and fir branches, and that’s where they go.
You can see them and hear them.
We’ve went for walks in the woods—I had to practically carry Jack through the woods, because there was no way he was walking through all that tree falls and bushes.”

I did this whole area.
There’s an old road out back.
When I got to the top of the hill, I met Daniel.
I said, “Did you find them?”
He said, “No.”
He said, “You coming with me?”
I said, “No—I’m going to search this area.”

Because when she told me the kids were missing, you automatically think they went into the woods.
That was my first instinct.

So I went up and did this whole wooded area—right up to the dirt road—came back down the side of the road, and came back out the same spot.

I’m not sure if Janie realizes just how damning what she said is.

According to her, Maleia and Daniel knew that the kids were missing without ever even checking her trailer.

How did they know that the kids didn’t go into the trailer to visit Grandma—after apparently swinging on the swings that were right next to her trailer?

There are a couple potential answers.
But one of them is: They already knew where the kids were.

In other words, this is all a hoax—and they know exactly what happened to the children.

And if I understand what else Janie said in this clip, Daniel was apparently up on the road beyond the woods in his car—apparently driving around looking for Lily and Jack.

Could they really have gone so far in just 20 minutes that Daniel thought it was necessary to hop into a car to go look for them?

If I’m betting—I’m betting Daniel hopped into that car to do something else, and used “searching for Lily and Jack” as a pretense.

But before I get into that—I want to give Janie McKenzie a chance to do an interview with me and clear all this up.

So Janie, if you’re out there—contact me through my YouTube community page.

Otherwise, we’re going to analyze the rest of this interview in my next video.

If you want to see that, let me know by liking, commenting, and sharing.

Until next time, stay true.