Anonymous wrote:After reading through all the information, it doesn't sound like they intended to do a day long hike. And if the dog didn't have protection for it's feet, Jonathan probably found himself trying to carry the dog AND the baby. With the scorching temperatures, he reached a point where he simply couldn't go any further. He was probably also developing heat stroke. And that's why he was found in the sitting position with the dog and baby next to him.
Then his wife was also succumbing to heat stroke. I gather they were trying to stick together as a group, but when Jonathan couldn't go any further she ventured ahead to seek help. Maybe due to her health issues she couldn't take the baby with her. By then it was too late. Soon after she also collapsed.
Very heartbreaking and tragic.

Anonymous wrote:I’m wondering if there may have been two contributing factors—like a combo of toxic algae and heatstroke and that’s why it’s going to take a while to tease apart what might have happened.

I’m also wondering if mom left dad, baby, dog after they had died and then collapsed on the trail.

Anonymous wrote:Such an odd case. I can usually come up with an Occam’s Razor explanation. I feel sorry for the dog and the toddler who had no choice in this crazy hike.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People who do drugs recreationally do not give drugs to babies. Simmer down, Nancy Reagan.

If the mother was EBF the drugs would have passed through her breastmilk.

And before you say impossible -

Both parents admitted to using cocaine, and Krystin breastfed the baby thinking the drug would have passed through her system after 12 hours
https://www.kold.com/story/33304269/ex-tucson-reporters-sentenced-in-child-endangerment-case/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Could be a boulder

There would have been blunt force trauma that would have shown up on an autopsy.

Lol. For the second time: “Tell me you haven’t read the thread without telling me you haven’t read the thread.”

It’s 71 pages - if I hadn’t seen the original boulder idiocy I would have said the same.

I refuse to believe their are two Boulder boosters

NP
What’s this about boulders? I don’t get it.

Anonymous wrote:Such an odd case. I can usually come up with an Occam’s Razor explanation. I feel sorry for the dog and the toddler who had no choice in this crazy hike.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Could be a boulder

There would have been blunt force trauma that would have shown up on an autopsy.

Lol. For the second time: “Tell me you haven’t read the thread without telling me you haven’t read the thread.”

It’s 71 pages - if I hadn’t seen the original boulder idiocy I would have said the same.

I refuse to believe their are two Boulder boosters

NP
What’s this about boulders? I don’t get it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Could be a boulder

There would have been blunt force trauma that would have shown up on an autopsy.

Lol. For the second time: “Tell me you haven’t read the thread without telling me you haven’t read the thread.”

It’s 71 pages - if I hadn’t seen the original boulder idiocy I would have said the same.

I refuse to believe their are two Boulder boosters

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?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Could be a boulder

There would have been blunt force trauma that would have shown up on an autopsy.

Lol. For the second time: “Tell me you haven’t read the thread without telling me you haven’t read the thread.”

It’s 71 pages - if I hadn’t seen the original boulder idiocy I would have said the same.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Could be a boulder

There would have been blunt force trauma that would have shown up on an autopsy.

If you sat on a 106 degree boulder, no blunt force trauma involved.

Anonymous wrote:People who do drugs recreationally do not give drugs to babies. Simmer down, Nancy Reagan.