Lilly & Jack Sullivan Cover-up?  Where’s the starting point when all we’ve been given is lies? 
It is Thursday morning, the 26th of June, and we’re sticking with the Canadian case today — the missing siblings: six-year-old Lily and four-year-old Jack Sullivan, who have been missing since May 2nd from Lanstown Station, Pictou County, Nova Scotia.

I’ve said from the outset that something is not right in this case. It was just a feeling, based on Malia, the mother’s, interview on May 3rd and then over the few days where the searchers were all over the place. There was a massive, massive effort by RCMP and search organizations for five days. And during that time, stepdad Daniel Martell was talking to the media almost every day — and something just did not feel right. Something did not sit well with me.

And I don’t say that lightly, because I’m not the kind of person who instantly jumps to blame the parents. You know, people have been totally exasperated with me — and some of them unsubscribed — for my views on the Sebastian Rogers case, the then-15-year-old young man from Hendersonville, Tennessee, who was reported missing on February 26, 2024.

I’ve consistently said I don’t think any of the parents — the mother, the stepdad, or the biological dad — did anything directly to disappear Sebastian. I really don’t. I haven’t seen one smidgen of evidence that leads me to believe that the parents had anything to do with it. Not directly, anyway. Trouble in the family may have contributed to Sebastian leaving, but I believe Sebastian left of his own accord.

And if there’s a case where I just don’t know, I’ll leave every option open. And that’s what I’ve done in this case.

But there is something not right.

So, people who are saying, “We’ve just been lied to, the parents are complicit, the parents murdered Jack and Lily…” — I can’t discount any of that. I really can’t.

Now, over the last week or so, an extended family member of Malia has been coming out, talking. He’s been on a number of YouTube channels. He originally called himself Derwood. His name is Darren, and he is Malia’s grandma’s cousin — which makes him Malia’s first cousin twice removed. So, he’s an extended family member, and he’s been saying that, based on his investigation and the people that he’s been talking to, Malia wanted to leave Daniel and she did something really stupid. She got a friend to pick Lily and Jack up, and she planned to follow on later with baby Meadow.

Now, Meadow was 16 months old at the time of Lily and Jack’s disappearance, so she’s going to be 18 months now. And baby Meadow is Daniel’s biological child.

But Daniel has not been allowed to see Meadow at all. He did post a picture on his Facebook the other day of him and Meadow, so I assume he’s now been allowed to see her under the supervision of CPS.

Malia supposedly had possession of Meadow, but she had to be supervised. That alone is strange. And CPS don’t normally take a child away from a particular parent just because another child in the family has gone missing. It doesn’t happen — unless there’s suspicion that the parents did something, that the parents are blameworthy, or during the investigation of the missing child it becomes clear that the — I don’t know — the living arrangements or the child’s environment are not suitable. Then CPS will act based on that information. So it’s only indirectly related to the missing child.

The strangest thing, though, was the fact that Malia left and went to live with her mother. She has a lawyer. We don’t know what she said to the cops. It’s just very strange.

What mother does that? What mother leaves just over 24 hours after you’ve reported your kids missing?

Now, some people have said, “Well, she’s not allowed to stay at Daniel’s because Daniel’s mother has kicked her out.”

I mean, look — I don’t know. I just think it’s really, really weird. Malia’s reaction is really weird.

And Belinda Gray — lovely lady — she was interviewed by CBC News a week or so back. She is Lily and Jack’s biological grandmother. Her son, Cody, is Lily and Jack’s bio dad. He doesn’t have anything to do with the children.

According to text messages between Belinda and Malia — that were posted by Sunny on It’s a Crimeing Shame, who’s been in contact with Belinda and spoken to her a lot — these text messages between Malia and Belinda lead you to believe that Daniel’s been really controlling.

Is that true? I don’t know. That’s Malia’s side of the story — and that might be why she wanted to leave.

So, there’s a whole lot going on behind the scenes that we don’t know about.

Anyway, Derwood — stroke Darren — coming out, saying that Malia planned for Lily and Jack to quote-unquote go missing, although the intention was for Malia to leave with baby Meadow later that day. And because Janie, Daniel’s mother, was there and caught her just after the children left — Malia thought Janie wasn’t there, wasn’t on the property — Malia lied, and things have got completely out of hand.

Now, in those text messages with Belinda, Malia did not deny it. She did not deny it — which again gives me a massive pause for thought. There’s just something not right. I just feel like we’ve been lied to. We’ve been duped. And I think the cops have as well.

There are a lot of things that lead me to believe that Derwood’s story has some truth in it. I’m not saying it’s true — I’m saying I cannot discount it. And it does make sense.

Then again — why would she do that? Why wouldn’t she just leave with all the kids together? Get someone to pick all of them up, and then there’d be no confrontation. No Daniel being upset. No shouting and screaming or whatever she was scared of.

So for that reason, it doesn’t make sense.

Anyway, there’s a principle in philosophy, science, and the study of logic called Occam’s Razor. Someone in my comments — nine hours ago, as I record this — “clickityclacky75” says:

“If I apply Occam’s Razor, they’re gone. The parents are complicit — whether by means of intent or neglect. Everything else seems to be a little too complicated for these two to pull off for so long.”

So, Occam’s Razor. What is it?

Many of you will have heard of it. I asked ChatGPT: “Can I explain Occam’s Razor?” I said.

So, ChatGPT has given a very simple explanation:

Occam’s Razor is a problem-solving principle that suggests the simplest explanation is usually the correct one. More precisely, when faced with competing hypotheses or explanations, the one that makes the fewest assumptions should be preferred — unless more complex explanations are necessary to account for the evidence.

It’s named after William of Occam, a 14th-century English philosopher and theologian. He didn’t invent the principle but is closely associated with it due to his frequent use of it in philosophical reasoning.

Example: Suppose you hear hoofbeats outside your window. Simple explanation? It’s horses. Complex explanation? It’s zebras that escaped from a zoo.

Occam’s Razor suggests you should assume it’s horses — unless you have specific evidence pointing to zebras.

Occam’s Razor is a heuristic — a rule of thumb — not proof. The simplest explanation isn’t always correct, but it’s often the best starting point. It’s widely used in science, logic, philosophy, and even everyday reasoning.

Let me know if you want more examples.

No, I don’t need more. The horses and zebras — that example’s used a lot. If you hear hoofbeats outside your window, why is it more likely to be horses? Because horses are far more common.

Zebras, however, are not domesticated. The only way you would see a zebra normally is in a zoo.

If you lived in the middle of the savannah and you heard hoofbeats outside your window, they’re more likely to be zebras. It depends on what’s most common where you live.

So, that’s not a universally preferred statement, is it? And you’ve got to remember that sometimes, the hoofbeats are actually zebras.

There was a case in Tennessee recently — somebody bought a zebra that escaped. People were chasing this poor beast around the countryside for days. Finally, Ed — he became known as — was captured.

So, if you lived in that area, in middle Tennessee, and you heard hoofbeats outside your window — it could well have been Ed the zebra.

So, what point am I making?

I’m making the point that yes, it’s true: the explanation with the fewest assumptions is most likely to be the correct one. However, there are a lot of caveats.