NEW UPDATE — The case involving Lilly and Jack Sullivan continues to unravel. Newly revealed police transcripts reveal the identity of the person who found the pink blanket — while Daniel Martell maintains it wasn’t Lilly’s. The investigation also touches upon a lead related to the mine, information about a possible sighting of a child, and questions surrounding the sliding door that Daniel only mentioned after reading about it in the newspaper. Authorities have also confirmed reviewing Daniel’s lie detector test results. So why haven’t the police released the last person to see the two children?
The disappearance of Lilly and Jack Sullivan continues to evolve as investigators address new physical findings, tips, and statements while remaining silent on one of the most critical questions in the case: who last saw the children alive. The latest update includes confirmation surrounding a pink blanket, a tip involving a possible mineshaft, a reported sighting, and clarification on Daniel Martell’s polygraph test.
According to newly surfaced police dispatch audio, authorities have confirmed who located the pink blanket connected to the search effort. The audio provides clarity on the discovery process, even as questions persist about the blanket’s relevance. Daniel Martell has publicly stated that the blanket does not belong to Lilly, distancing it from the children’s personal effects. Investigators have not confirmed ownership, underscoring that the item remains one element among many under review.
The pink blanket has become a focal point largely because of how physical evidence can influence search direction. Officials have cautioned that not every discovered item directly links to the missing children, but each find must be evaluated carefully before conclusions are drawn. The dispatch audio clarifies the chain of discovery, helping eliminate speculation about how the item entered the investigation.
Another detail drawing attention is Daniel Martell’s statement regarding a sliding door. According to Daniel, his awareness of the sliding door came from a news article rather than firsthand knowledge. This distinction has been noted by investigators as they continue to separate direct observations from information learned after the fact. In missing-person cases, understanding when and how details are learned can be critical to assessing reliability.
Investigators are also reviewing a tip involving a possible mineshaft. Authorities have not disclosed the location or credibility assessment of the tip, but they confirmed it was logged and evaluated according to standard procedure. Tips involving abandoned structures or remote terrain are common in search operations and require careful verification due to safety and logistical concerns.
In addition, police have acknowledged receiving a report of a possible child sighting. As with many such reports, officials have not confirmed its accuracy, noting that sightings must be corroborated before they can influence investigative direction. Law enforcement continues to urge the public to report information while avoiding assumptions.
One point of clarification provided in the update concerns Daniel Martell’s polygraph test. Police confirmed the status of the test but stopped short of characterizing results, emphasizing that polygraph exams are investigative tools rather than definitive evidence. Authorities reiterated that such tests do not determine guilt or innocence and are used to guide further inquiry.
Despite these disclosures, police have not publicly identified the last person known to have seen Lilly and Jack Sullivan. This silence has drawn attention, as last-seen information often plays a key role in missing-children investigations. Officials have not explained the reason for withholding this detail, but such restraint can be linked to protecting investigative integrity or ongoing lines of inquiry.
The accumulation of updates highlights the complexity of the case. Physical items, secondhand information, public statements, and unverified tips all intersect, requiring investigators to carefully filter fact from noise. Each new element adds context but also introduces new questions.
Authorities continue to stress that the investigation remains active and evolving. They have asked the public to rely on official updates and avoid spreading unverified claims. While transparency is limited, police maintain that discretion is necessary to preserve the effectiveness of the search and analysis.
As the case moves forward, attention remains fixed on what has been confirmed — and what has not. The pink blanket’s discovery, the mineshaft tip, the reported sighting, and the polygraph clarification provide pieces of the puzzle, but the central mystery remains unresolved.
For now, the question of who last saw Lilly and Jack Sullivan alive remains unanswered. Whether police will address that detail publicly is unclear. What is clear is that the investigation is far from over, and each update continues to reshape the conversation surrounding the disappearance.
