By: Deception Detective | Statement Analysis & Interrogation Strategy

When six-year-old Lily and four-year-old Jack Sullivan vanished from Lanstown Station, Nova Scotia, on May 2, 2025, many believed the case had hit a dead end. The RCMP’s public statements felt vague, uncertain—even lost.

But if you listen closely, there’s another possibility. The RCMP might not be confused at all. They might be playing a strategic game—a technique known in interrogation circles as the SUE technique: Strategic Use of Evidence. And they may be closing in on the truth.

Step One: Say Less, Listen More

The SUE technique begins with silence. Police avoid showing their cards. Instead, they let the person of interest talk—locking them into a version of events.

In the RCMP’s latest interview, we hear this in action:

“We don’t currently have evidence to suggest an abduction…”
“We’re exploring all investigative avenues.”

At first glance, it sounds like they’re at square one. But this vagueness isn’t indecision. It’s strategy.

Step Two: Imply You Know More Than You Say

The second phase of the SUE method involves subtle pressure. Investigators hint they may have evidence—but don’t reveal what, where, or how they got it.

Take this quote:

“We know they were seen in public with loved ones the day before. The specifics aren’t being released.”

That would be May 1, 2025—one day before the children were reported missing. But how do they know that? CCTV? Witness? Transaction logs? They’re deliberately not saying.

That vagueness creates psychological pressure for anyone who might be hiding something. If someone involved bought suspicious items or traveled to a key location, they now have to wonder: Did the police see it? Do they know who I was with? What did I forget to cover?

This approach forces suspects to either:

Disclose more than they planned, risking contradictions

Say nothing and appear evasive

It’s a high-stakes mental game—and the RCMP are playing it well.

The Amber Alert Controversy

One of the loudest public criticisms has been: Why wasn’t an Amber Alert issued?

The RCMP explained:

“We need a suspect, vehicle description, or license plate to issue an Amber Alert. Those criteria weren’t met.”

Instead, a vulnerable persons alert was issued. This isn’t laziness—it’s policy.

Step Three: Expose the Lie

The final stage of the SUE method is confrontation. This is when police present the evidence they’ve been holding back—contradicting a suspect’s story.

In cases with co-conspirators, the goal is to divide them: make one talk before the other does.

We’re not there yet in this case—but signs point to the RCMP building toward it.

Do the RCMP Know What Happened?

When asked directly whether the RCMP know what happened to Lily and Jack, the spokesperson didn’t say yes or no. Instead:

“We’re exploring all investigative avenues… We must be cautious with what we release so we don’t compromise the investigation.”

This isn’t indecision. It’s discipline. It’s a sign that they may be preparing for something bigger.

Will We Ever Know What Happened?

That’s the question haunting the public.

“Is it possible we may never know what happened?”
“I can’t answer that today. But I can tell you our investigators are experienced.”

It’s a grim answer—but also a promise. The RCMP aren’t giving up.

Final Thoughts: Silence Isn’t Weakness

The absence of public details shouldn’t be mistaken for incompetence. In fact, the RCMP may be using silence as a weapon—methodically tightening the net.

If the SUE technique is in play, then we’re watching a high-level interrogation unfold in real time. And that means: someone may already be trapped.