What happened to this California family?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:91 pages and no answer yet? ugh

We're all waiting on the toxicology reports, which will probably be another few weeks.

Why do toxicology reports take so long? They can’t be expedited in a big case?

It’s not a ‘big’ case:

- No one else from the family is missing. They’re all dead.
- There’s no public health threat because no one lives there - it’s the desert.
- They aren’t profile or politicians either - unlike the Kennedy daughter who went missing and they sent a sub after her

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How long do people think it would have taken the family to hike to the point they were found, assuming no injuries? I just don’t understand the family intentionally doing the entire 8 mile loop. 5 miles of it is steep climbing trail with no shade. But if they didn’t mean to do the whole loop, how did they end up so far down the trail?

Maybe the dog and/or baby ran off?

Yes, that's it. The 1-year-old ran off and the parents couldn't catch her. Then, they all got struck by a boulder that killed them yet left no visible signs of trauma.

I'm touched that my boulder idea has been so memorable, even when I said it was unlikely. More likely the dad sat on a hot boulder, while eating botulism tainted beef jerky that he shared with the dog.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How long do people think it would have taken the family to hike to the point they were found, assuming no injuries? I just don’t understand the family intentionally doing the entire 8 mile loop. 5 miles of it is steep climbing trail with no shade. But if they didn’t mean to do the whole loop, how did they end up so far down the trail?

Maybe the dog and/or baby ran off?

Yes, that's it. The 1-year-old ran off and the parents couldn't catch her. Then, they all got struck by a boulder that killed them yet left no visible signs of trauma.

I'm touched that my boulder idea has been so memorable, even when I said it was unlikely. More likely the dad sat on a hot boulder, while eating botulism tainted beef jerky that he shared with the dog.

ILY

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:91 pages and no answer yet? ugh

We're all waiting on the toxicology reports, which will probably be another few weeks.

Why do toxicology reports take so long? They can’t be expedited in a big case?

It’s not a ‘big’ case:

- No one else from the family is missing. They’re all dead.
- There’s no public health threat because no one lives there - it’s the desert.
- They aren’t profile or politicians either - unlike the Kennedy daughter who went missing and they sent a sub after her

If it was the toxic algae that killed them, then yes, this is a big case. It will have a big impact, locally and possibly much more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How long do people think it would have taken the family to hike to the point they were found, assuming no injuries? I just don’t understand the family intentionally doing the entire 8 mile loop. 5 miles of it is steep climbing trail with no shade. But if they didn’t mean to do the whole loop, how did they end up so far down the trail?

Maybe the dog and/or baby ran off?

Yes, that's it. The 1-year-old ran off and the parents couldn't catch her. Then, they all got struck by a boulder that killed them yet left no visible signs of trauma.

I'm touched that my boulder idea has been so memorable, even when I said it was unlikely. More likely the dad sat on a hot boulder, while eating botulism tainted beef jerky that he shared with the dog.

And the wife?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When it's in the 90s and above, even the military has "black flag" conditions and are supposed to allow for specific periods of rest, water, shade and monitoring during drills. And this is military members.

So a 109 degree hike for several miles with a 20 lb baby and gear plus possibly an ailing dog is basically against all logic.

Looking at weather reports it looks like it was in the 80s when they started. Maybe they planned to be back by the time temps reached into the upper 90s to 100+.

South facing exposure. No shade. Even 80F would be hot.

80 degrees isn't very hot in desert climates, even in direct sun. It just didn't stay 80 degrees for very long. From the timeline posted earlier, it was close to 100 degrees at 10am.

It was already mid to high 80s when they started. With no shade and at high altitude, yes that does feel very very hot.

They were not at "high altitude," they were at 1900'. I live about 100 miles north of that area at a similar altitude and we happened to go to a local state park that very same day. We got to the park at 9am and left at 1pm. We didn't do any serious hiking but the temperature was moderate and not "very very hot." We left at 1pm because it was starting to warm up. If the family arrived at the trailhead at 8am (they were spotted in their car at 7:45am) they would have had 4 hours before the temp reached 100 and potentially dangerous with no shade.

If you look up thread the hourly temps for this day are posted. It hit 103 at 11 and was well into the 90s by 9.

Actually no. This is from the official Sheriffs report: "Spot Weather for the area indicates temperatures during 11:50 am – 5:50 pm ranged between 103-109 degrees in certain areas of the trail." They actually had almost 5 hours in very manageable temps before that could have become a factor. I was out in very, very similar conditions that morning and it was not life threatening.

You are now bam from posting on this thread also.

Jeff is keeping a list.

Not the previous poster but why would the PP be banned and what's jeff keeping a list of??

Because PP is math challenged. 8AM to 12PM is 4 hours. Around 10AM the temperatures would start rapidly climbing. Lastly, the hardest part, the ascent on the unshaded hill was saved for last, during the hottest period.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:91 pages and no answer yet? ugh

We're all waiting on the toxicology reports, which will probably be another few weeks.

Why do toxicology reports take so long? They can’t be expedited in a big case?

There is a queue and this case is no more important than any other case. In fact, probably less important since everyone involved is dead and it's not likely to be foul play. They'll get to it when they get to it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:91 pages and no answer yet? ugh

We're all waiting on the toxicology reports, which will probably be another few weeks.

Why do toxicology reports take so long? They can’t be expedited in a big case?

There is a queue and this case is no more important than any other case. In fact, probably less important since everyone involved is dead and it's not likely to be foul play. They'll get to it when they get to it.

But if there’s a potential toxin in the environment, I’d hope that they’d move this up the queue. Otherwise we can expect see other fatalities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How long do people think it would have taken the family to hike to the point they were found, assuming no injuries? I just don’t understand the family intentionally doing the entire 8 mile loop. 5 miles of it is steep climbing trail with no shade. But if they didn’t mean to do the whole loop, how did they end up so far down the trail?

Maybe the dog and/or baby ran off?

Yes, that's it. The 1-year-old ran off and the parents couldn't catch her. Then, they all got struck by a boulder that killed them yet left no visible signs of trauma.

I'm touched that my boulder idea has been so memorable, even when I said it was unlikely. More likely the dad sat on a hot boulder, while eating botulism tainted beef jerky that he shared with the dog.

And the wife?

Heat stroke for wife and baby.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:91 pages and no answer yet? ugh

We're all waiting on the toxicology reports, which will probably be another few weeks.

Why do toxicology reports take so long? They can’t be expedited in a big case?

There is a queue and this case is no more important than any other case. In fact, probably less important since everyone involved is dead and it's not likely to be foul play. They'll get to it when they get to it.

No they are working around the clock on it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When it's in the 90s and above, even the military has "black flag" conditions and are supposed to allow for specific periods of rest, water, shade and monitoring during drills. And this is military members.

So a 109 degree hike for several miles with a 20 lb baby and gear plus possibly an ailing dog is basically against all logic.

Looking at weather reports it looks like it was in the 80s when they started. Maybe they planned to be back by the time temps reached into the upper 90s to 100+.

South facing exposure. No shade. Even 80F would be hot.

80 degrees isn't very hot in desert climates, even in direct sun. It just didn't stay 80 degrees for very long. From the timeline posted earlier, it was close to 100 degrees at 10am.

It was already mid to high 80s when they started. With no shade and at high altitude, yes that does feel very very hot.

They were not at "high altitude," they were at 1900'. I live about 100 miles north of that area at a similar altitude and we happened to go to a local state park that very same day. We got to the park at 9am and left at 1pm. We didn't do any serious hiking but the temperature was moderate and not "very very hot." We left at 1pm because it was starting to warm up. If the family arrived at the trailhead at 8am (they were spotted in their car at 7:45am) they would have had 4 hours before the temp reached 100 and potentially dangerous with no shade.

If you look up thread the hourly temps for this day are posted. It hit 103 at 11 and was well into the 90s by 9.

Actually no. This is from the official Sheriffs report: "Spot Weather for the area indicates temperatures during 11:50 am – 5:50 pm ranged between 103-109 degrees in certain areas of the trail." They actually had almost 5 hours in very manageable temps before that could have become a factor. I was out in very, very similar conditions that morning and it was not life threatening.

What was your trail like? Was it mostly rocky? The rocks can reflect the heat and make it hotter. Did you have shade? It also depends which side of the range you are on. Are you aware of that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:300 people are bitten by rattlesnakes per year in CA.

Interesting fact. In the book about dying in the Grand Canyon, very few of the deaths involve animals. They were surprised when they studied the data that rattlesnake bites didn't count for more deaths. They rarely bite hikers in the GC and they aren't fatal bites when they do bite. I think one older guy died of a heart attack after being bitten. One guy got butted off a trail by a mountain goat.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:91 pages and no answer yet? ugh

We're all waiting on the toxicology reports, which will probably be another few weeks.

Why do toxicology reports take so long? They can’t be expedited in a big case?

It’s not a ‘big’ case:

- No one else from the family is missing. They’re all dead.
- There’s no public health threat because no one lives there - it’s the desert.
- They aren’t profile or politicians either - unlike the Kennedy daughter who went missing and they sent a sub after her

If it was the toxic algae that killed them, then yes, this is a big case. It will have a big impact, locally and possibly much more.

You know they stopped the whole toxic gass angle the day after the family was found. If they still thought that was true, they would be warning people now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:91 pages and no answer yet? ugh

We're all waiting on the toxicology reports, which will probably be another few weeks.

Why do toxicology reports take so long? They can’t be expedited in a big case?

There is a queue and this case is no more important than any other case. In fact, probably less important since everyone involved is dead and it's not likely to be foul play. They'll get to it when they get to it.

No they are working around the clock on it.

PP, do you know someone working on this case?

[Anonymous]

No, I read an article that said that. The family wants answers.