The disappearance of six-year-old Lily Sullivan and four-year-old Jack Sullivan remains one of the most perplexing and debated investigations in recent Canadian memory. Now, nearly every assumption about the early-morning timeline is being re-examined after a neighbor reported hearing vehicle activity at 1:30 AM and again at 6:30 AM on May 2, 2025 — hours before the children were reported missing. This new detail sharply conflicts with statements made by stepfather Daniel Martell, who told media outlets that no one from the household left the property that night. The discrepancy has pushed investigators into a deeper review of digital and physical evidence as they attempt to reconstruct the final known hours before the children vanished.

The Royal Canadian Mounted Police confirmed that they have requested highway toll footage, nearby traffic-camera records, cell phone tower logs, and banking data to verify all vehicle movements associated with the household between midnight and the time the missing-person call was placed. While RCMP has not stated whether they believe the reported vehicle sounds are connected to the case, investigators say the timeline “remains active, fluid, and under detailed analysis.”

The Sullivan case began shortly after 10:30 AM on May 2, when the children’s mother, Malehya Brooks-Murray, called authorities to report both children missing from their Lansdowne Station home. At the time, she and Martell told investigators that the family had been inside throughout the night, and no unusual activity occurred until they noticed the children were no longer in the residence the following morning. According to their early statements, Lily had last been seen moving between bedrooms around 9:40 AM, while Jack had only been “heard” in the kitchen earlier in the morning — a detail that, even then, raised questions among investigators about his confirmed movements.

But it is the neighbor’s account that has now placed a new layer of tension on the timeline. The neighbor — whose name has not been released — reported hearing a vehicle start, reverse, and leave the driveway around 1:30 AM. The same neighbor says they heard another vehicle movement at 6:30 AM, describing it as either a return or a second departure. RCMP has not publicly confirmed whether these descriptions match vehicles owned by the family or whether they could be unrelated noise from another residence. However, the timing of the reported activity is considered significant because it falls squarely within the window when investigators believe the children were last accounted for.

Martell has categorically denied that either vehicle belonging to the household was driven during those hours, telling reporters days after the disappearance: “We were inside. No one left. Not a single one of us went outside until morning.” RCMP has not contradicted his statement publicly, but the new investigative focus suggests that every element of the family’s timeline is being scrutinized.

Both parents took polygraph examinations on May 12 and were reported to have passed. RCMP emphasized that polygraphs are investigative tools and not definitive evidence of innocence or guilt, but said the results “supported ongoing cooperation from both adults in the household.” Even so, polygraphs do not resolve factual conflicts in timelines, and the neighbor’s report remains part of the active case file.

Investigators are now comparing the neighbor’s auditory account with digital records to determine whether any vehicle associated with the household moved during the time in question. Toll booth data from highways near Lansdowne Station has been requested, along with bank transactions that could indicate fuel purchases or early-morning spending. Cell phone tower pings from devices belonging to household members are also being reviewed to determine whether any phones left the property between midnight and 7:00 AM.

Digital forensics experts say such a cross-referencing process is standard in missing-children cases, especially those involving unexplained early-morning activity. “You’re looking to build a minute-by-minute reconstruction,” one analyst explained. “A neighbor’s report is valuable, but digital confirmation either solidifies or eliminates it. That allows investigators to move from speculation to facts.”

RCMP has also reached out to nearby homes requesting any available surveillance footage, including doorbell cameras, garage cameras, and rural motion-activated monitors that might have captured headlight movement near the property. Investigators caution that rural areas often have limited visibility and that the absence of footage is not proof of absence of activity.

Meanwhile, the contradiction between the neighbor’s report and the family’s statements has fueled intense public debate, with online speculation once again running ahead of confirmed facts. RCMP has urged the public to avoid assumptions and emphasized that no charges have been filed against anyone. Both adults in the home remain cooperative, and investigators have not declared any individual a suspect. The focus, they reiterate, is establishing an accurate timeline, not assigning blame prematurely.

The broader timeline challenges remain unresolved. Lily’s movements between 8:00 and 9:40 AM were based on visual observations inside the home. Jack’s presence, however, was only confirmed through sounds — a detail questioned by investigators given the difficulty of verifying auditory assumptions during busy morning routines. That ambiguity leaves a large window in which his disappearance may have occurred.

If the neighbor is correct about the 1:30 AM and 6:30 AM vehicle activity, it could indicate one of several possibilities:
• a member of the household left the property without later acknowledging it
• an unrelated vehicle passed by but sounded close enough to resemble a driveway departure
• a visitor or unknown individual was near the residence
• or the noises were misinterpreted entirely

Only digital verification can resolve which scenario is plausible.

RCMP has not announced when results from toll footage or cell records will be available, but investigators say the review is extensive and ongoing. They emphasize that the case remains open and active, with analysts continuing to process tips, forensic evidence, and new information as it emerges. For now, the conflict between neighbor testimony and family statements stands as one of the central unresolved pieces of the puzzle.

As the investigation continues, the question remains:
Did a vehicle leave the Sullivan property in the early hours of May 2 — and if so, who was driving it?

Until that is answered, the timeline of Lily and Jack’s disappearance remains fractured, uncertain, and under the microscope of Canada’s top investigators.