What happened to this California family?
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
Not all moms do that. My kids spent more than half of their naps in a carrier or in the car. |
Anonymous
At a hazmat site? Brave men. |
Anonymous
Thank you. Let’s hear more from these mothers who 100% know how they would handle a situation in 105 plus degree heat on a hike that went wrong and lasted several hours beyond what was intended. Tell us how you would have carried the baby (and maybe dad and dog too) up the 1400-2000 ft incline 1.5 miles to the truck while likely suffering from heat exhaustion. I think we could all learn from your knowledge. |
Anonymous
| The cops aren’t gonna say it was heat stroke until they have the toxicology results. They ran tox for a reason and this wouldn’t be a 60 page thread if the cause of death were obvious. I think I was likely heat-related but clearly something about the scene led the cops to suspect there might be more to the story. Could be undisclosed details or could just be the fact that all 4 of them died in the same area and same loose timeframe. I don’t think that’s weird but clearly lots of people do. |
Anonymous
I hiked with all of my kids. Even as infants in a carrier. But not in that kind of heat, and not on trails I didn’t know. My babies napped comfortably in a chest carrier when they were tired. No issues sleeping, napping or eating while being out and about. Babies and toddlers love hiking in the correct environment. |
Anonymous
NP here. I think that's just it. People are arguing that it's unimaginable for the mom to leave her baby (to defend one theory or another) aren't realizing that in a situation so intensely stressful, physical and emotionally--and perhaps disorienting with the onset of heat stroke--the mother may well have taken off on her own as the best shot she thought she had, either to find help for herself only, or help for her baby/husband/dog. Some things that could have made their hike (even downhill part) take even longer than expected (resulting in their uphill climb being pushed later into the heat of the day?): 1. The baby's presence would have delayed them a lot, even beyond being a load to carry: Few 1-yr olds will be content to stay put in a carrier for 2, 3, or more hours straight. The parents might have had to interrupt their hike as she got fussy, to take her out of the carrier for a bit. Even just giving her a drink would involve a couple of minutes' pause. These breaks could have happened repeatedly in the course of a several-hour hike, adding a lot of extra time even from the initial point of the hike. The baby may have even needed a diaper change that they did on the trail. (Seems inconvenient to do on a trail, but if a kid is smelly/uncomfortable, parents would do a change quickly and make it work.) As the child got more and more uncomfortable in the heat, the need to calm the baby may have also caused them to pause more. 2. Since the trail does go down by the river, it's possible that the family may have tried to cool off, or let the dog cool off, in the river. Even if they weren't harmed by toxic algae blooms (see #4 below) this again would slow them down and throw off their intended timing. 3. The mines may be ruled out as a cause of fumes/death, but is it possible that the couple were curious to find mines and explore a little? Because the mines are disused and likely overgrown, maybe the couple didn't locate any (because in there they could have cooled down, I suppose), but wasted some time looking for them. Other conditions that I don't think have been teased out as much as they could be: 4. I don't know the details behind the toxic algae theory, but I suppose one factor arguing against this has been that the family had water in their packs. But it's not hard to imagine that maybe one or all of the party drank some: --(i) maybe the dog did go in the river, and drank it (if a hot canine came near a cool-looking river, wouldn't it make a beeline for it, and of course drink?); maybe it started to get ill after a short while, needing carrying (it'd explain why the dog was right near the dad) and thus adding to the couple's strain; and/or --(ii) the couple decided to conserve their own water by taking drinks from the river. --(iii) they decided to cool off the baby in the river (as in #2 above), and in the process, the baby got some water in its mouth, perhaps inadvertently or perhaps as an attempt to get the baby to get hydrated/cooled. I'd not let my 1-yr old drink from a river, but they could have been unaware of the dangers, felt the natural location made it relatively pure--especially if they felt that they'd desperately need to keep hydrated and that this need would justify the risks. (This, in fact, could have led all of them to drink from it, as in (ii). 5. Someone upthread mentioned that the mom might have been breastfeeding and therefore could have been more dehydrated. Many moms do breastfeed a child older than 1 yr old. This would have also delayed their timing. I am wondering whether the possibility that they went into the river at some point is so compelling for the investigators that they are not eliminating the possibility that toxic algae exacerbated/contributed to the heat stroke. An article I briefly skimmed online mentioned that in the past, closing trails because of potential algae, or even just warnings of it, makes people steer clear and local businesses get upset if it's unproven. So the authorities could be wanting to see whether it's a contributing factor but being cautious. |
Anonymous
I'm sure they took precautions.... |
Anonymous
Who would go for a run in obviously dangerous heat? Who would got for a hike in Death Valley in obviously dangerous heat? There are at least three examples of similar stupidity. |
Anonymous
| Ok so no trees around to sit under, but about an old mine? I don’t know the first thing about mines but could they have gone inside an old abandoned mine to escape the heat? This is assuming they had the presence of mind and weren’t delirious from heat stroke. Were there any mines close enough for them to have rested for several hours and headed back to the car in the evening? I realize this wasn’t their plan when they initially went on this tragic hike. |
Anonymous
I thought I saw upthread that they were only about a mile or so was it from the car. But if two well hydrated adults left home with baby and dog in tow, could they really not survive heatstroke? It’s not like they were wandering the desert for days. This is why I question heatstroke. |
Anonymous
| I don't think there were any mines that nearby to them. I've been in an abandoned mine. It was just a hole in the ground with a danger sign. |
Anonymous
|
Heatstroke is not the same as dehydration and has a high fatality rate. The body is basically melting/cooking from the inside out. Those that do survive may have brain damage.
https://www.cnn.com/2017/07/24/health/heat-stroke-explainer/index.html#:~:text=Heat%20stroke%20places%20you%20at%20risk%20for%20permanent,fast%20strong%20pulse%2C%20headache%2C%20nausea%2C%20and%20feeling%20dizzy |
Anonymous
I’m PP of 21:08, and I agree with your take. The other PP’s question is perplexing, sort of framed as “shouldn’t the couple have thought about and followed through with this potential emergency plan?’ (Eg hiding out in a mine shaft to stay cool). Maybe I mis-understood the other PP. But I think we can reasonably assume that the couple wasn’t approaching their hike in a way that thought through all the potential pitfalls, like scorching heat, so why would people expect that they were operating in a focused, smart survival mode when under stress. It’s hard to expect anyone to be. More to the point, it’s not about whether they could have saved themselves in some way. Their options, whatever they perceived them to be, ran out, sadly, and it’s a matter of understanding how it happened. My point on the mines was that maybe they were initially part of the appeal, as in an adventurous aspect of the trail, so the couple may have dallied a bit searching for them early on. I agree that they weren’t likely to have used them (or been able to use them) for cooling off/shelter. |
Anonymous
|
This article says a witness saw them heading to the trail early morning.
https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Chemical-hazards-on-trail-gunshots-ruled-out-as-16414619.php |
Anonymous
|
It was in the 90s within an hour of their 8ish am start time.
It is always safest to NOT have a big, steep climb at the end. When tired or even with heat exhaustion, not heat stroke, a sprained ankle, etc, gravity pulling you really helps. That 2000 foot climb up the completely exposed switchbacks had to be brutal. The Google Earth view is worth a look. There is a reason LE called it an "aggressive" hike. I imagine they were carrying the dog by that point too. Stuff of nightmares. |