What happened to this California family?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What time was the nanny supposed to come take over childcare? Did the nanny not report the fact that the family was not home? Not saying she should have thought it was an emergency at that point. But it makes me wonder if they’d have been found alive if she had.

It was a Sunday so it probably was not a regularly scheduled block for the nanny and might have been a last minute overtime job so she might have figured there was a change of plans.

Sorry you’re confused. The family went for the hike on Sunday. Nanny showed up for work as planned on Monday morning. Family reported missing late Monday night. Police discovered bodies on Tuesday morning.

No exactly sure why people are trying to blame someone for not reporting them missing sooner.

I’m the poster who originally asked about the nanny. As I said, I’m not saying she should have sounded the alarm at that point. I was just wondering why nobody noticed anything the day of the hike. Wouldn’t family, friends, neighbors, nanny or whomever have noticed none of the family came back the day of the hike? Especially if they were supposed to be back by lunchtime or early afternoon. But they were not reported missing until the next night. Not even the next morning, but at the end of the next evening.

The nanny works weekdays. They went hiking on a Sunday. I don’t find it surprising at all that no one noticed they were missing until the Monday morning, when both the nanny and people at the husband’s work were concerned and started making calls.

Would they have definitely all have perished by Sunday afternoon/evening? I don’t know what the timeline was. It’s just so awful. I’m also a little surprised there were no other hikers either Sunday or Monday. I’m not a huge hiker but whenever I do go I see at least two other groups during the hike.

Was there a heat warning on the news that told ppl to stay home?

I feel like 109 would be an "excessive heat-stay indoors especially if elderly or baby" type warning here? I assume they have similar warnings out there?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Seems like it must be heat stroke. Those are death valley temps and they were there during the heat of the day. Haven't like 3 people in the past week died of heat stroke in death valley? Simplest explanation is usually the one...

Then why didn’t that get reported as the likely cause? All the articles I’ve read frame this as “mysterious,” “unexplained” deaths.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think they were novices who were enthusiastic about hiking, but had no idea what they were doing and died of heat stroke. Hence, a fur covered dog and baby in 105 or 109 degree hiking for MILES. They just had absolutely no idea what they were doing, weather, difficulty, they didn't know trail at all, nothing. Basically scooped up whole family to hike miles into death valley type heat with no easy way out.

[phone]
This is exactly what I wanted to say.

Yup this. Stop saying they were expert hikers. I did a few hikes in rock creek park with a Dunkin’ Iced coffee in keds and thought I was an expert hiker compared to my friends or family who stay in their backyard ha. And now that I live away from DC near actual trails I wised up, and yes there were a few scary moments as I learned.

I thought I was an expert hiker until I got lost in unfamiliar woods. It is SO EASY to get lost and disoriented and misjudge distances, risk, etc. especially if it's outside your "usual" territory and the first time you do a hike.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Even if they intended to make the full loop, it's very possible that they didn't have any idea how bad the final leg would be. Most of the pictures and reviews of that section of trail are from before the big fire a few years ago. They show a trail well covered in pine trees. If they thought their final leg was going to look like this:

https://sierranewsonline.com/hiking-on-the-savage-lundy-trail/

The complete lack of shade, and heat reflecting from bare dirt all around, might have caught them completely off guard.

I read this trail review too and this quote from the author stood out to me: "This hike was a good workout and I sure loved seeing this old mining country from a different perspective. It was a cooler day with a breeze, so it wasn’t too hot as we climbed out of that canyon. I would not want to do this hike on a warm day."

The reviewer is clearly an experienced hiker, and in all the photos is wearing pants and long sleeves and it's before the fire removed so many of the trees that would shade it. I really think that they either mistook this trail for the hite's cove one that others have mentioned and/or got there and realized but just decided to do it anyway because they were already there and were overconfident and then the heat caught up to them.

[Anonymous]

I think there's plenty of rationale to explain why heatstroke was likely *a* cause of death. There appear to be few reasons why it wasn't heatstroke, and I think these can be argued away
Why heatstroke:
1. It was damn hot. Very damn hot. I don't think there's any debate: the conditions were scorching and intense for any human, esp a baby (& dog)
2. The couple was overburdened. They had their child on their backs and a dog that may (for several reasons, paws/fur/etc) have needed to be carried at some point.
3. Dozens of factors suggest they could have been on the trail for much longer than they intended, and therefore spent more time in the heat of the day and in unshaded conditions. (Factors include: dog/baby slowing them down, getting sidetracked by checking out river/mines, got their choice of trail mixed up, etc.)
4. The disorienting nature of heatstroke which means we don't need to expect the couple to have behaved 100% rationally as they got ill (e.g. leaving baby w/dad, mom going ahead).

Arguments against heatstroke?
A. Three of them found at the same place[ --does that suggest it unlikely that all succumbed in one place/time? --NO, imho. Once the mom went on ahead, the baby wasn't going anywhere on her own, no matter whether she lived longer than her father or not. The dog at the dad's side can be explained either by dogs' habit of tending to their owners during owners' distress, or this dog failing earlier along the hike, and the dad carried him and kept him alongside.
B. Water in their camelbacks--But water doesn't prevent heatstroke, does it?...keeping hydrated is essential in the heat, but they could have gotten overheated and not been able to cool down simply with water. Plus, maybe they were trying to conserve the water.
C. The authorities not simply saying "it was heatstroke"--I think the authorities could be wondering whether they tried to cool off in the river (maybe they had signs of being in the river? like mud on clothes) and want to make sure it wasn't an ADDITIONAL factor that EXACERBATED their difficulties withstanding the conditions (e.g., if they swam in the river, the dog drank water and got ill). Because if there was any toxic algae, the authorities would want to know, and be sure, so they can post warnings accordingly.
D. They were experienced hikers--Indeed, they were; but I don't think that past experience makes their bodies any more tolerant of intense heat for a prolonged time. At most, it argues that they should've been able to know how to hike most safely in the heat. But reasons #2 and #3 above suggest all the ways that their preparation or judgement could have been thrown off, to their misfortune.

These 4 are the reasons people aren't ready to accept heatstroke as the simple explanation, it seems...(Along with from people getting fascinated by unusual suggestions without evidence , like mine fumes or murder.)
Have I missed any?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think there's plenty of rationale to explain why heatstroke was likely *a* cause of death. There appear to be few reasons why it wasn't heatstroke, and I think these can be argued away
Why heatstroke:
1. It was damn hot. Very damn hot. I don't think there's any debate: the conditions were scorching and intense for any human, esp a baby (& dog)
2. The couple was overburdened. They had their child on their backs and a dog that may (for several reasons, paws/fur/etc) have needed to be carried at some point.
3. Dozens of factors suggest they could have been on the trail for much longer than they intended, and therefore spent more time in the heat of the day and in unshaded conditions. (Factors include: dog/baby slowing them down, getting sidetracked by checking out river/mines, got their choice of trail mixed up, etc.)
4. The disorienting nature of heatstroke which means we don't need to expect the couple to have behaved 100% rationally as they got ill (e.g. leaving baby w/dad, mom going ahead).

Arguments against heatstroke?
A. Three of them found at the same place[ --does that suggest it unlikely that all succumbed in one place/time? --NO, imho. Once the mom went on ahead, the baby wasn't going anywhere on her own, no matter whether she lived longer than her father or not. The dog at the dad's side can be explained either by dogs' habit of tending to their owners during owners' distress, or this dog failing earlier along the hike, and the dad carried him and kept him alongside.
B. Water in their camelbacks--But water doesn't prevent heatstroke, does it?...keeping hydrated is essential in the heat, but they could have gotten overheated and not been able to cool down simply with water. Plus, maybe they were trying to conserve the water.
C. The authorities not simply saying "it was heatstroke"--I think the authorities could be wondering whether they tried to cool off in the river (maybe they had signs of being in the river? like mud on clothes) and want to make sure it wasn't an ADDITIONAL factor that EXACERBATED their difficulties withstanding the conditions (e.g., if they swam in the river, the dog drank water and got ill). Because if there was any toxic algae, the authorities would want to know, and be sure, so they can post warnings accordingly.
D. They were experienced hikers--Indeed, they were; but I don't think that past experience makes their bodies any more tolerant of intense heat for a prolonged time. At most, it argues that they should've been able to know how to hike most safely in the heat. But reasons #2 and #3 above suggest all the ways that their preparation or judgement could have been thrown off, to their misfortune.

These 4 are the reasons people aren't ready to accept heatstroke as the simple explanation, it seems...(Along with from people getting fascinated by unusual suggestions without evidence , like mine fumes or murder.)
Have I missed any?

Re (C), I think read that the authorities said they couldn’t determine whether the couple had been interested the water because water on their skin/clothes would have evaporated quickly. I took that to mean their clothes and shoes weren’t definitely indicating that they went in the water.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think they were novices who were enthusiastic about hiking, but had no idea what they were doing and died of heat stroke. Hence, a fur covered dog and baby in 105 or 109 degree hiking for MILES. They just had absolutely no idea what they were doing, weather, difficulty, they didn't know trail at all, nothing. Basically scooped up whole family to hike miles into death valley type heat with no easy way out.

[phone]
This is exactly what I wanted to say.

Yup this. Stop saying they were expert hikers. I did a few hikes in rock creek park with a Dunkin’ Iced coffee in keds and thought I was an expert hiker compared to my friends or family who stay in their backyard ha. And now that I live away from DC near actual trails I wised up, and yes there were a few scary moments as I learned.

I thought I was an expert hiker until I got lost in unfamiliar woods. It is SO EASY to get lost and disoriented and misjudge distances, risk, etc. especially if it's outside your "usual" territory and the first time you do a hike.

Yes, it happened to me too in France. There were warning signs about the sun exposure being deadly. I was running out of water and became overheated very quickly. I was so excited about capturing the beauty with my camera and became too distracted endangering myself. Heat can really affect you suddenly. I tell others I was a hiker before I became ill, but I really wasn't.

[Anonymous]

Ugh. Sorry, I meant I think I read that the authorities couldn’t determine if they had been IN the water.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think there's plenty of rationale to explain why heatstroke was likely *a* cause of death. There appear to be few reasons why it wasn't heatstroke, and I think these can be argued away
Why heatstroke:
1. It was damn hot. Very damn hot. I don't think there's any debate: the conditions were scorching and intense for any human, esp a baby (& dog)
2. The couple was overburdened. They had their child on their backs and a dog that may (for several reasons, paws/fur/etc) have needed to be carried at some point.
3. Dozens of factors suggest they could have been on the trail for much longer than they intended, and therefore spent more time in the heat of the day and in unshaded conditions. (Factors include: dog/baby slowing them down, getting sidetracked by checking out river/mines, got their choice of trail mixed up, etc.)
4. The disorienting nature of heatstroke which means we don't need to expect the couple to have behaved 100% rationally as they got ill (e.g. leaving baby w/dad, mom going ahead).

Arguments against heatstroke?
A. Three of them found at the same place[ --does that suggest it unlikely that all succumbed in one place/time? --NO, imho. Once the mom went on ahead, the baby wasn't going anywhere on her own, no matter whether she lived longer than her father or not. The dog at the dad's side can be explained either by dogs' habit of tending to their owners during owners' distress, or this dog failing earlier along the hike, and the dad carried him and kept him alongside.
B. Water in their camelbacks--But water doesn't prevent heatstroke, does it?...keeping hydrated is essential in the heat, but they could have gotten overheated and not been able to cool down simply with water. Plus, maybe they were trying to conserve the water.
C. The authorities not simply saying "it was heatstroke"--I think the authorities could be wondering whether they tried to cool off in the river (maybe they had signs of being in the river? like mud on clothes) and want to make sure it wasn't an ADDITIONAL factor that EXACERBATED their difficulties withstanding the conditions (e.g., if they swam in the river, the dog drank water and got ill). Because if there was any toxic algae, the authorities would want to know, and be sure, so they can post warnings accordingly.
D. They were experienced hikers--Indeed, they were; but I don't think that past experience makes their bodies any more tolerant of intense heat for a prolonged time. At most, it argues that they should've been able to know how to hike most safely in the heat. But reasons #2 and #3 above suggest all the ways that their preparation or judgement could have been thrown off, to their misfortune.

These 4 are the reasons people aren't ready to accept heatstroke as the simple explanation, it seems...(Along with from people getting fascinated by unusual suggestions without evidence , like mine fumes or murder.)
Have I missed any?

Re (C), I think read that the authorities said they couldn’t determine whether the couple had been interested the water because water on their skin/clothes would have evaporated quickly. I took that to mean their clothes and shoes weren’t definitely indicating that they went in the water.

Thanks for adding/ clarifying. I see your point (and saw that you corrected it to be 'in' the water), and I had the same thought about water drying off, especially at those temps. I was just wondering whether there had been possibly mud on their clothes/shoes/socks, which would have been quite possible, I think, and which would have still been visible even if most of it crumbled away. But even without a positive sign, maybe the authorities have been still checking it out as something that hadn't yet been disproven.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems like it must be heat stroke. Those are death valley temps and they were there during the heat of the day. Haven't like 3 people in the past week died of heat stroke in death valley? Simplest explanation is usually the one...

Then why didn’t that get reported as the likely cause? All the articles I’ve read frame this as “mysterious,” “unexplained” deaths.

Because when the investigators first came across the bodies, they didn’t have all the info we have now and they didn’t expect to find all four dead close to each other in the middle of the trail (dad, baby, dog side by side) and mom 30 ft closer to the car. It gave the appearance of them all dropping dead at the same time, though they probably didn’t—when the dad sat to rest, baby and or/dog may have been fine (unlikely) or one or both (probably at least the poor dog with the heavy coat) dead or unconscious. He probably thought he could recover after a rest, but was too overcome by heat at that point to cool off. Other two were helpless next to him.

One thing I’d be curious to know is if the autopsy would show something like a pulled muscle? My working theory is that dog or baby were in distress by the time they got to the bottom of the gulch, and the parents were rushing to get them back to the truck carrying both. Way too much of a sustainable effort at that incline on a day that hot.

[Anonymous]

Before moving to DC from NYC, I visted to check things out. It was very humid every day and night. I spent my days in the hot sun on the mall, potomac river, etc. I was trying to make it back to my hotel one night approached two women to walk with me. It was dark and I kept going in circles around dupont circle. I could not get across it on to the street by myself. I made it back to my hotel just in time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What time was the nanny supposed to come take over childcare? Did the nanny not report the fact that the family was not home? Not saying she should have thought it was an emergency at that point. But it makes me wonder if they’d have been found alive if she had.

It was a Sunday so it probably was not a regularly scheduled block for the nanny and might have been a last minute overtime job so she might have figured there was a change of plans.

Sorry you’re confused. The family went for the hike on Sunday. Nanny showed up for work as planned on Monday morning. Family reported missing late Monday night. Police discovered bodies on Tuesday morning.

No exactly sure why people are trying to blame someone for not reporting them missing sooner.

I’m the poster who originally asked about the nanny. As I said, I’m not saying she should have sounded the alarm at that point. I was just wondering why nobody noticed anything the day of the hike. Wouldn’t family, friends, neighbors, nanny or whomever have noticed none of the family came back the day of the hike? Especially if they were supposed to be back by lunchtime or early afternoon. But they were not reported missing until the next night. Not even the next morning, but at the end of the next evening.

The nanny works weekdays. They went hiking on a Sunday. I don’t find it surprising at all that no one noticed they were missing until the Monday morning, when both the nanny and people at the husband’s work were concerned and started making calls.

Would they have definitely all have perished by Sunday afternoon/evening? I don’t know what the timeline was. It’s just so awful. I’m also a little surprised there were no other hikers either Sunday or Monday. I’m not a huge hiker but whenever I do go I see at least two other groups during the hike.

Whether they originally meant to be on the trail they did is unclear but most people don’t do that hike in August with temperatures so high. It’s the kind of hike you do in March or October.

Some hikes can be done most year. Some hikes are seasonal. This particular trail falls into the latter category.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m heading back to murder suicide since heat stroke so obvious. They would have said.

Staunch murder/suicide poster here.

I am just sitting back, reading, waiting for it to be confirmed. 🍿 🍿

Couldn't one of them avoided a lot of trouble and just poisoned them at home?

Sure. Maybe he wanted to romanticize it.

The cops already said it wasn't murder.................

Toxicology hasn't come back. Surely police meant murder by a 3rd party.

Murder is murder.

DP. I'm not going to keep digging in this thread, but I could have sworn murder had not been ruled out. I saw on p30 that dad's dad said he didn't think it was murder, and on p38 that the cops said murder "isn't high on our list." I also THINK early on they said or implied there's no murderer running free or hanging out around that trail/park.

I'm not saying it was murder-suicide, I just don't think it's been conclusively ruled out.

If someone else finds where it was, please link!

[Anonymous]

This reminds me of the hunt for the Death Valley Germans. Each small wrong choice led them further toward their death.

I think part of what makes it so compelling is how relatable it is. I can remember hiking with a baby in a Kelty. My husband can remember hiking with a dog that was a bit too old for the mileage and then having to carry the dog out. I can recall times when I didn't pack enough diapers or snacks for a trip to the zoo. I've put in the wrong address on Waze and ended up at the address that ended in Road instead of Lane. We've been a little too overconfident before. We've spazzed out and made dumb choices before and ruined an outing because we didn't factor in where we'd eat or if we had enough gas. We've argued and not been the best team in figuring out how to deal with a mini-crisis. Cell phone dead, forgot to download the alltrails map, no cell service, didn't eat enough breakfast first, dog refuses to move, baby looks lethargic...etc etc. I personally can see how, within just a few decisions or situations, heat stroke for a dog, a dad, a baby, and/or a mom could kill all four of them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This reminds me of the hunt for the Death Valley Germans. Each small wrong choice led them further toward their death.

I think part of what makes it so compelling is how relatable it is. I can remember hiking with a baby in a Kelty. My husband can remember hiking with a dog that was a bit too old for the mileage and then having to carry the dog out. I can recall times when I didn't pack enough diapers or snacks for a trip to the zoo. I've put in the wrong address on Waze and ended up at the address that ended in Road instead of Lane. We've been a little too overconfident before. We've spazzed out and made dumb choices before and ruined an outing because we didn't factor in where we'd eat or if we had enough gas. We've argued and not been the best team in figuring out how to deal with a mini-crisis. Cell phone dead, forgot to download the alltrails map, no cell service, didn't eat enough breakfast first, dog refuses to move, baby looks lethargic...etc etc. I personally can see how, within just a few decisions or situations, heat stroke for a dog, a dad, a baby, and/or a mom could kill all four of them.

Well said. I totally agree.