Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's the dog's death that has me really confused. How does something incapacitate an animal the same way it incapacitates humans? Dogs are so incredibly loyal that if he still had breath in his body, he would have left to go for help for his humans. What kills a dog so quickly? Or did they die first and he stayed with their bodies? All horrifying.

I don't know what happened to this family but most dogs, no matter how loyal, would not go for help. That's only in movies. My own dog cannot find her way home from two houses down, let alone contemplate "help."

Anonymous wrote:

It will be important to hear eventually if the dog was covered with algae -- someone above posted a scenario where the dog might have gone into water with toxic algae in it and the adults somehow got poisoned via the wet dog. That actually sounds plausible, if the algae work that fast at second hand. But it's all just speculation for now

This scenario crossed my mind. Dog gets in water, maybe drinks, starts to seize. Family tries to help dog gets toxic stuff on them. Thing is, would have to be enormously toxic to kill that way and I'm not sure that is realistic.

Honestly I thought of the series the leftovers when I read about this.

Anonymous wrote:Probably murder suicide by poison.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Something more is going on here. I heard on the radio that police cordoned off the area and slept on the trail to preserve the scene (not to get too graphic, but they didn’t want anything disturbed, no animals getting to the bodies) for further forensics. No way police would have slept next to those bodies unless they’d ruled out an environmental cause like methane or CO. And they keep mentioning the father’s “sitting” position.

It's the complete opposite. They wouldn't sleep there if they thought it was dangerous. The far-fetched theories being thrown around to avoid what is the obvious, but unthinkable, is mind-boggling to me.

It will be important to hear eventually if the dog was covered with algae -- someone above posted a scenario where the dog might have gone into water with toxic algae in it and the adults somehow got poisoned via the wet dog. That actually sounds plausible, if the algae work that fast at second hand. But it's all just speculation for now

Anonymous wrote:It's the dog's death that has me really confused. How does something incapacitate an animal the same way it incapacitates humans? Dogs are so incredibly loyal that if he still had breath in his body, he would have left to go for help for his humans. What kills a dog so quickly? Or did they die first and he stayed with their bodies? All horrifying.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Something more is going on here. I heard on the radio that police cordoned off the area and slept on the trail to preserve the scene (not to get too graphic, but they didn’t want anything disturbed, no animals getting to the bodies) for further forensics. No way police would have slept next to those bodies unless they’d ruled out an environmental cause like methane or CO. And they keep mentioning the father’s “sitting” position.

It's the complete opposite. They wouldn't sleep there if they thought it was dangerous. The far-fetched theories being thrown around to avoid what is the obvious, but unthinkable, is mind-boggling to me.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Something more is going on here. I heard on the radio that police cordoned off the area and slept on the trail to preserve the scene (not to get too graphic, but they didn’t want anything disturbed, no animals getting to the bodies) for further forensics. No way police would have slept next to those bodies unless they’d ruled out an environmental cause like methane or CO. And they keep mentioning the father’s “sitting” position.

It's the complete opposite. They wouldn't sleep there if they thought it was dangerous. The far-fetched theories being thrown around to avoid what is the obvious, but unthinkable, is mind-boggling to me.

Anonymous wrote:Something more is going on here. I heard on the radio that police cordoned off the area and slept on the trail to preserve the scene (not to get too graphic, but they didn’t want anything disturbed, no animals getting to the bodies) for further forensics. No way police would have slept next to those bodies unless they’d ruled out an environmental cause like methane or CO. And they keep mentioning the father’s “sitting” position.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Something more is going on here. I heard on the radio that police cordoned off the area and slept on the trail to preserve the scene (not to get too graphic, but they didn’t want anything disturbed, no animals getting to the bodies) for further forensics. No way police would have slept next to those bodies unless they’d ruled out an environmental cause like methane or CO. And they keep mentioning the father’s “sitting” position.

I’d be more worried about dying like they did by staying on the scene. Brave police.

Anonymous wrote:Something more is going on here. I heard on the radio that police cordoned off the area and slept on the trail to preserve the scene (not to get too graphic, but they didn’t want anything disturbed, no animals getting to the bodies) for further forensics. No way police would have slept next to those bodies unless they’d ruled out an environmental cause like methane or CO. And they keep mentioning the father’s “sitting” position.