Bootprints, Blankets, and Behavioral Red Flags: A Closer Look at the Disappearance of Lily and Jack Sullivan

The disappearance of four-year-old Jack and six-year-old Lily Sullivan continues to raise more questions than answers. In a recent update that has gripped the true crime community, new details—including a potential bootprint, a piece of a blanket, and insights into their family dynamics—are pushing this case into deeper and darker territory.

The Bootprint and Blanket

One key development is the discovery of a small bootprint in the woods. Police haven’t officially confirmed it belongs to either child, but the children’s stepfather, Daniel Martell, claims it was near a piece of Lily’s blanket. Jack, notably, was last seen wearing blue dinosaur boots.

This aligns with radio chatter captured during the search, in which a searcher states:

“Families brought us to a location… not far away… there’s a part piece of a blanket.”

Though police remain tight-lipped about the blanket, Martell’s claim that it belonged to Lily raises red flags—especially given that he, not police, was reportedly the one who found it.

Children on the Spectrum?

Martell also stated that both Lily and Jack may have had undiagnosed autism. If true, this would drastically influence how the children might behave in a survival situation—likely hiding, remaining quiet, or avoiding unfamiliar voices.

Search teams were aware of this possibility. They conducted close-formation, high-sensitivity grid searches, noting how thick the woods were in places. One search leader said that even at a 20-meter spacing, visibility was so limited that team members couldn’t see two feet ahead.

Martell’s Behavior and the Hoax Hypothesis

Daniel Martell has given various public and private statements, including one in a Facebook Q&A session that was later leaked. In it, he made bold assertions:

That he believes the children are alive.

That Malaya (the children’s mother) knows who drove them off the property.

That she will “crack” once her mental health is examined more closely.

Critically, Martell claimed Malaya never publicly pleaded for her children’s return. He also stated that she asked for their birth certificates, school photos, and one stuffed animal for each child—requests that have fueled speculation online that she may have known they were never coming back.

Interference with the Search Effort

Martell’s early claim that he searched the woods before police arrived may have had unintended consequences. If he was indeed in the area where the bootprint was found, his presence may have contaminated the scene. Scent dogs, which rely on untainted environments, might have been misled or exhausted chasing his trail instead of the children’s.

From an investigative standpoint, that’s a major problem. If a hoax is at play, Martell’s actions could be interpreted as laying evidence—planting the bootprint and blanket to construct the illusion of a wandering-off scenario.

What Makes a Hoax Break Down?

As a deception analyst, I often talk about increasing cognitive load—making it mentally harder for someone to maintain a lie. If I had interviewed Daniel Martell, here are a few key strategies I would’ve used:

Reverse-order recall: Asking him to recount events backwards, which is much harder to fabricate.

Unexpected detail questions: Like, “Who was walking in front when you found the bootprint?” or “Did you see any animals?” These seemingly harmless questions can unravel inconsistencies when asked of multiple people.

Devil’s advocate questioning: For instance, “I know you and Malaya are innocent, but if we wanted to find evidence that could restart the search, where should we look?” This type of question often yields more honest answers because the suspect still wants to appear cooperative, even while hiding something.

Emotional Gaps and Behavioral Clues

One thing that continues to stand out is what hasn’t been said. Daniel Martell has never made a public appeal to any potential kidnapper. He’s never expressed visible regret that his actions may have interfered with the search.

He also hasn’t shown curiosity—something every desperate loved one should have. Hoaxers often forget to be curious or suspicious, because behaving that way might force them to acknowledge the possibility that someone else they care about could be responsible.

The Emotional Toll on Searchers

As we learned, the terrain around Landown Station is brutal. Thick brush. Fallen trees from Hurricane Fiona. Hidden wells and mine shafts.

Search teams put in over 12,000 hours—a staggering number. But as hope faded, so did morale. Some volunteers couldn’t even bring themselves to call the children’s names out loud. Others, emotionally exhausted, didn’t return for follow-ups.

So, Where Do We Go From Here?

Unless new, credible evidence surfaces, search teams say they’re unlikely to return to the area. That makes the stakes for this case even higher: whatever happened to Lily and Jack may never be known unless someone cracks—or speaks.

If I could sit down with Daniel Martell, I’d leave him with one final question—one that hoaxers hate to answer:

“If someone out there did take those kids, and you could say one thing to them right now, what would it be?”