What happened to this California family?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a 21 lb baby and I also have a 50 lb very furry northern breed dog.

Because I've been following this thread and story, out of curiosity, I put the baby in his pack and on my back and picked up the dog just to test out the hurt dog theory. That is a LOT of weight and distributed very very oddly. On a 109 degree day, the combination is deadly, not to mention the sheer effort involved in just keeping yourself balanced, especially if you're going up and down hills. Even with two people passing them back and forth or taking turns carrying one, it would have been deadly.

Interesting experiment. You should post your results on WebSleuths.

I also think the immobile dog is what did them in. The mom had that dog for about 8 years and she owned it before she started dating her husband. No way was she going to let them leave the dog behind to rescue at a later time. I honestly think that this is what killed them - trying to transport both the dog and the kid in a day that was rapidly heating to above-normal temps.

+1 I think the dog set off a bad chain of events. I live in the desert with a young GSD and there is no way she could make this hike in that heat. At 110 degree temps, she tires completely after about 10 minutes of exercise (sometimes we throw her tennis balls in the backyard if she is a bit rambunctious- after a few minutes she is tired and heads for the patio door) And their dog was on the older side, if memory serves, and who knows how much water they brought or how much was given to the dog...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I live in the SW, in an area that is seeing highs in the range of 103-108 (like the day they went hiking). I think the piece of this i STILL cannot understand, is why they were on this hike or what they were doing.

Yes, I know people die all the time of heat stroke. But they KNEW this area, it’s not like many of the cases listed here where it was tourists. I know they’d only lived there a year but that’s plenty of time to be familiar enough with the heat.

Also, living in this desert climate….it’s not like DC. It’s not like the weather is a surprise to anyone. They would have known the forecast for the day. There’s simply no way they didn’t know how hot it was and what was coming. It’s really really hot, every day, for months.

Even assuming that they got a later start than they planned or just somehow didn’t fully realize the heat, there’s no way they wouldn’t have realized soon into their hike that it is REALLY hot out and only getting hotter and there’s no shade. I don’t see why they wouldn’t have anticipated that things were going south. Not in an OMG we are gonna die kind of way. But just in a “this isn’t goood for the baby and really sucks” kind of way. You don’t need to be an expert hiker to discern those things. Why didn’t they turn back sooner into the hike?

Also….1 year olds don’t like to be in hiking carriers for hours. They just don’t. The baby had turned 1 in august.

The whole trip was weirdly conceived.

Now keep a few things in mind….

1. They went somewhere that they likely knew would have no foot traffic
2. They told no one where they were going
3. according to some reports, they did not bring very much water
4. They knew the conditions of the area and where they were going in advance (not clueless tourists)

I go back and forth between FA and heat stroke, but the hike was so ill conceived, and they stuck to it. It strikes me as just not adding up to an accidental hike gone wrong.

+1 (and I also live in the SW) NO ONE in their right mind would go on a hike like this with a baby. OR with a dog you care about at all. Just NO. The only people that do this sort of thing are (1) dumb tourists and (2) reckless young people in their teens and 20s. I just can’t emphasize this enough. If they were alone, it would be more plausible but it would take a special kind of stupid to go out like this with a baby or a dog.

They are either complete idiots who were overconfident and got in completely over their heads, or it’s a murder-suicide. I think the latter.

Weren’t they pretty recent transplants though? And they were also used to hiking arid desert terrain for fun.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a 21 lb baby and I also have a 50 lb very furry northern breed dog.

Because I've been following this thread and story, out of curiosity, I put the baby in his pack and on my back and picked up the dog just to test out the hurt dog theory. That is a LOT of weight and distributed very very oddly. On a 109 degree day, the combination is deadly, not to mention the sheer effort involved in just keeping yourself balanced, especially if you're going up and down hills. Even with two people passing them back and forth or taking turns carrying one, it would have been deadly.

Interesting experiment. You should post your results on WebSleuths.

I also think the immobile dog is what did them in. The mom had that dog for about 8 years and she owned it before she started dating her husband. No way was she going to let them leave the dog behind to rescue at a later time. I honestly think that this is what killed them - trying to transport both the dog and the kid in a day that was rapidly heating to above-normal temps.

+1 I think the dog set off a bad chain of events. I live in the desert with a young GSD and there is no way she could make this hike in that heat. At 110 degree temps, she tires completely after about 10 minutes of exercise (sometimes we throw her tennis balls in the backyard if she is a bit rambunctious- after a few minutes she is tired and heads for the patio door) And their dog was on the older side, if memory serves, and who knows how much water they brought or how much was given to the dog...

+2 It's tragic, but I get it. I would never leave my dog (and obviously you don't have a crystal ball that tells you, guess what, dog dies anyway and so do you, your husband, and child if you don't leave the dog behind).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting that the linked Update article says a witness saw them that day on the trail.

I wonder about the accuracy of the reporting. The article also said that they told friends and family that they were going on this hike. If that were true, why didn't any of them report the missing sooner?

People don't always check in with family and friends every single day. It was about 1 day later that they were reported missing.

They were reported missing by the nanny as soon as she came into work on Monday and she contacted family members throughout the day when they didn't return.

These two lived in the middle of nowhere, if they were going to disappear that's what happens.

When did nanny report for work? I think the reports say the family was reported missing at 11pm Monday. Or maybe the police search began at 11pm?

Monday morning. When she immediately started calling around to see where they were. The police waited to file an official missing report until 11PM Monday - probably because they assumed the family was just out of contact for a bit. If it was the baby missing by itself, they would have filed a Amber Alert that morning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a 21 lb baby and I also have a 50 lb very furry northern breed dog.

Because I've been following this thread and story, out of curiosity, I put the baby in his pack and on my back and picked up the dog just to test out the hurt dog theory. That is a LOT of weight and distributed very very oddly. On a 109 degree day, the combination is deadly, not to mention the sheer effort involved in just keeping yourself balanced, especially if you're going up and down hills. Even with two people passing them back and forth or taking turns carrying one, it would have been deadly.

Interesting experiment. You should post your results on WebSleuths.

I also think the immobile dog is what did them in. The mom had that dog for about 8 years and she owned it before she started dating her husband. No way was she going to let them leave the dog behind to rescue at a later time. I honestly think that this is what killed them - trying to transport both the dog and the kid in a day that was rapidly heating to above-normal temps.

+1 I think the dog set off a bad chain of events. I live in the desert with a young GSD and there is no way she could make this hike in that heat. At 110 degree temps, she tires completely after about 10 minutes of exercise (sometimes we throw her tennis balls in the backyard if she is a bit rambunctious- after a few minutes she is tired and heads for the patio door) And their dog was on the older side, if memory serves, and who knows how much water they brought or how much was given to the dog...

+2 It's tragic, but I get it. I would never leave my dog (and obviously you don't have a crystal ball that tells you, guess what, dog dies anyway and so do you, your husband, and child if you don't leave the dog behind).

I just do not understand why they took the dog to begin with. I could see maybe doing a mile with the dog and baby. Maybe a mile out and a mile back. But I have a small dog who barely gets around the block without panting in the 95 degree weather. Had they gone on long hikes and/or desert hikes with this dog before?

[Anonymous]

This is certainly a mystery.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting that the linked Update article says a witness saw them that day on the trail.

I wonder about the accuracy of the reporting. The article also said that they told friends and family that they were going on this hike. If that were true, why didn't any of them report the missing sooner?

People don't always check in with family and friends every single day. It was about 1 day later that they were reported missing.

They were reported missing by the nanny as soon as she came into work on Monday and she contacted family members throughout the day when they didn't return.

These two lived in the middle of nowhere, if they were going to disappear that's what happens.

When did nanny report for work? I think the reports say the family was reported missing at 11pm Monday. Or maybe the police search began at 11pm?

Monday morning. When she immediately started calling around to see where they were. The police waited to file an official missing report until 11PM Monday - probably because they assumed the family was just out of contact for a bit. If it was the baby missing by itself, they would have filed a Amber Alert that morning.

That’s so sad. I wonder if the police had acted right away if there’s any chance one ore more of them would have survived.

But the reports also made it sound like nobody actually knew where they were hiking? And it was just a police officer’s lucky guess that led them to find the car and then the bodies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I find heat stroke hard to believe. If these folks were experienced hikers at ALL they knew to pack plenty of water. We hike in Maine FFS and over pack water.

It sounds like they only had 3L, which is quite a bit less than they should have had.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting that the linked Update article says a witness saw them that day on the trail.

I wonder about the accuracy of the reporting. The article also said that they told friends and family that they were going on this hike. If that were true, why didn't any of them report the missing sooner?

People don't always check in with family and friends every single day. It was about 1 day later that they were reported missing.

They were reported missing by the nanny as soon as she came into work on Monday and she contacted family members throughout the day when they didn't return.

These two lived in the middle of nowhere, if they were going to disappear that's what happens.

When did nanny report for work? I think the reports say the family was reported missing at 11pm Monday. Or maybe the police search began at 11pm?

Monday morning. When she immediately started calling around to see where they were. The police waited to file an official missing report until 11PM Monday - probably because they assumed the family was just out of contact for a bit. If it was the baby missing by itself, they would have filed a Amber Alert that morning.

That’s so sad. I wonder if the police had acted right away if there’s any chance one ore more of them would have survived.

But the reports also made it sound like nobody actually knew where they were hiking? And it was just a police officer’s lucky guess that led them to find the car and then the bodies.

How are the police supposed to react right away when they didn't know they were missing? They filed a search within 24 hours which is extraordinarily speedy.

The other California mom whose husband took her kids to Mexico and murdered them waited 48 hours before activating the police.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/california-dad-killed-his-kids-over-qanon-serpent-dna-conspiracy-n1276611

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting that the linked Update article says a witness saw them that day on the trail.

I wonder about the accuracy of the reporting. The article also said that they told friends and family that they were going on this hike. If that were true, why didn't any of them report the missing sooner?

People don't always check in with family and friends every single day. It was about 1 day later that they were reported missing.

They were reported missing by the nanny as soon as she came into work on Monday and she contacted family members throughout the day when they didn't return.

These two lived in the middle of nowhere, if they were going to disappear that's what happens.

When did nanny report for work? I think the reports say the family was reported missing at 11pm Monday. Or maybe the police search began at 11pm?

Monday morning. When she immediately started calling around to see where they were. The police waited to file an official missing report until 11PM Monday - probably because they assumed the family was just out of contact for a bit. If it was the baby missing by itself, they would have filed a Amber Alert that morning.

That’s so sad. I wonder if the police had acted right away if there’s any chance one ore more of them would have survived.

But the reports also made it sound like nobody actually knew where they were hiking? And it was just a police officer’s lucky guess that led them to find the car and then the bodies.

How are the police supposed to react right away when they didn't know they were missing? They filed a search within 24 hours which is extraordinarily speedy.

The other California mom whose husband took her kids to Mexico and murdered them waited 48 hours before activating the police.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/california dad-killed-his-kids-over-qanon-serpent-dna-conspiracy-n1276611

I’m not saying they should have been expected to. I also understand it takes time before people are considered missing. I’m just wondering if one or more of them were alive Monday. It’s just a sad “what if?” thought.

[Anonymous]

As a mom, if your baby died and your husband was dying, would you leave the dead baby to go for aid? I’m not sure I would be rationale enough to leave them and may take their corpse but that could have been the scene here.

[Anonymous]

Cases like this really drive home the need to get a device like an InReach satellite tracker if you're serious about hiking or adventuring outdoors. My DH enjoys backpacking and picked one up for a few hundred and basically has unlimited text even with no cell service. Even with the most basic subscription, you can call for rescue if you're somehow injured or lost.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As a mom, if your baby died and your husband was dying, would you leave the dead baby to go for aid? I’m not sure I would be rationale enough to leave them and may take their corpse but that could have been the scene here.

Splitting off to get help is a reasonable and pretty common survival strategy and has resulted in people saving their entire parties.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As a mom, if your baby died and your husband was dying, would you leave the dead baby to go for aid? I’m not sure I would be rationale enough to leave them and may take their corpse but that could have been the scene here.

Add in feeling sick yourself and experiencing emotional trauma that may have intensified the dehydration. Or all of them just too weak/sick to go on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a 21 lb baby and I also have a 50 lb very furry northern breed dog.

Because I've been following this thread and story, out of curiosity, I put the baby in his pack and on my back and picked up the dog just to test out the hurt dog theory. That is a LOT of weight and distributed very very oddly. On a 109 degree day, the combination is deadly, not to mention the sheer effort involved in just keeping yourself balanced, especially if you're going up and down hills. Even with two people passing them back and forth or taking turns carrying one, it would have been deadly.

Interesting experiment. You should post your results on WebSleuths.

I also think the immobile dog is what did them in. The mom had that dog for about 8 years and she owned it before she started dating her husband. No way was she going to let them leave the dog behind to rescue at a later time. I honestly think that this is what killed them - trying to transport both the dog and the kid in a day that was rapidly heating to above-normal temps.

+1 I think the dog set off a bad chain of events. I live in the desert with a young GSD and there is no way she could make this hike in that heat. At 110 degree temps, she tires completely after about 10 minutes of exercise (sometimes we throw her tennis balls in the backyard if she is a bit rambunctious- after a few minutes she is tired and heads for the patio door) And their dog was on the older side, if memory serves, and who knows how much water they brought or how much was given to the dog...

+2 It's tragic, but I get it. I would never leave my dog (and obviously you don't have a crystal ball that tells you, guess what, dog dies anyway and so do you, your husband, and child if you don't leave the dog behind).

I just do not understand why they took the dog to begin with. I could see maybe doing a mile with the dog and baby. Maybe a mile out and a mile back. But I have a small dog who barely gets around the block without panting in the 95 degree weather. Had they gone on long hikes and/or desert hikes with this dog before?

My guess is they had no idea how the dog would do in that heat. I posed about having a young German Shepherd and living in the desert, and desert hiking with her is only possible in the winter at temps in the 60s for daily highs (and even then, We go out early because the sun can be surprisingly hot by midday- even if the actual air temp isn’t that hot). I’m sure the dog has done hikes with them before but not in this type of heat, and the dog was getting older, besides...