CA - Jonathan Gerrish, Ellen Chung, daughter, 1 & dog, suspicious death hiking area, Aug 2021 #2

[Tower]

This is a good spot. I haven’t seen anything on her social media about a baby backpack. There is this photo on the top of both the SF Chronicle and WSJ stories (I think; I can’t access either). From what I can make out of the source on the “kangaroo backpack”, it’s a blog that’s aggregated all the news stories so I suspect they’ve (possibly inadvertently) embellished here and assumed the carrier in this photo (carried by two big titles) is recent and therefore what they had on the day.

Logic says though that they had one of the backpack carriers you’re talking about and this is why they posted it (either to a social media account or texted a photo to a friend). Probably because it was new and/or they planned to try it out.

I’m still of the view that it’s an assumption they made the full loop. I’m not sure this is actually the case but it’s something I’ve filed under ‘assumption’ in my head anyway. One of the ways stories like this can be so interesting is because each person pictures the scenarios in their minds which can be both very helpful to work out what questions to ask but can also start to meld fact with assumption so your spot here is nicely illustrative of this as I think that’s what the author in the blog post has done in relation to the “kangaroo bag”. Which, of course, they may well have had. Which suggests too they may not have undertaken such a long hike after all. One of those things we won’t know until the final analysis I suppose.

Yep, Miju was much younger in this photo in snow and I’m guessing she graduated up to the backpack with Camelbak, but we have conflicting MSM reports and we may never know. Moo

 

[McSpy]

Hyponatremia (low sodium) may be evident on biochemical autopsy, but you need to be able to ballpark time of death to evaluate the vitreous sodium levels correctly. Sodium and potassium make the heart beat but are unfortunately tricky to measure post-mortem; for example, potassium overdose can be hard to detect because bodies are naturally hyperkalemic after death.

I don’t see how they could carry enough water to get hyponatremic though - the last case I recall was a “drink as much water as you can and keep your hands on a car to win it” challenge; leading to the discontinuation of water intake challenges. Edit: it has also happened when people try to “flush” their systems before a drug test - but the point I’m driving at is that it doesn’t happen casually.

I see what you mean. Yet I’m thinking the adults may have suffered from some kind of a heat caused health emergency of some kind which made them collapse because of the overwhelming sickness, exhaustion and mental confusion. The dog and child were dependent on the adults to get to safety and/or to rehydrate, so they eventually died from heatstroke. In other words, the adults were incapacitated or had died before the dog and child.

 

[SophieRose]

If you want to see active waterfalls at Yosemite, you would need to visit during the springtime. I don't know why anyone would go in the fall and expect to see the falls. Besides the falls, Yosemite has the most beautiful scenery no matter which way you look. It is, in my opinion, the most beautiful place on earth.

I feel the same way. First time I went to Yosemite, I was 3 years old when the family went to Camp Mather. Went there another time in Oct after a wet winter and the water was flowing at the falls.

 

[sasha17]

Yes, photos in the first thread, Post 344. 3L is the max bladder that will fit into an adult pack.
IMO one adult would require more water than 4L for that hike in that heat and that dry air, with no shade. I would also be carrying supplemental Gatorade or I wouldn't make it up that hill, especially at the end of the mileage.
Consider, 4L of water is approx 8lbs. I can't imagine the couple was each carrying 8 lbs. of water. They would also have needed all the baby gear, the baby, the backpack, snacks, 10 essentials, baby bottles, dog stuff..... This is not a viable hike simply on the basis of the weight required.
I wonder if they were wearing hats?

This makes me wonder... has there been any information in the news articles about what they had with them? We know there was a phone in dad's pocket and they had the baby carrier and Camelback. Did they have anything else? Any other supplies at all?

 

[Tower]

I see what you mean. Yet I’m thinking the adults may have suffered from some kind of a heat caused health emergency of some kind which made them collapse because of the overwhelming sickness, exhaustion and mental confusion. The dog and child were dependent on the adults to get to safety and/or to rehydrate, so they eventually died from heatstroke. In other words, the adults were incapacitated or had died before the dog and child.

I don’t know which is more horrible for me to imagine: the helpless baby and pup dying first and parents overcome with grief or parents dying and babe and pup left to suffer. I’ve mentioned ad nauseam on this post that I have carried kids for miles in hot, rough terrain. I find it MUCH more plausible that my child would be fine, dressed in a thin, wicking UPF layer, under his sun shade attached to the backpack, sipping water from the Camelbak tube, while I overexerted myself climbing 1,500 ft in 1.5 miles carrying 35+ lbs. on my back.

But that doesn’t explain the death of the other parent. It’s very strange and terribly tragic they both overheated to the point of death before realizing they needed to change course. Moo

 

[McSpy]

If this was indeed heat related, it is unfortunate that these very smart people had a fatal lapse in judgment. Jonathan was ex-google/current Snap engineer. Similar to Philip Kreycik who was Harvard/MIT educated who also succumbed to a heat stroke not too long ago by running during a heat wave.

I agree. I just read that 3 or 4 people died of heat stroke in the last couple of months, while hiking in the Grand Canyon. Unfortunately, some people underestimate the danger of high temps.

 

[Infidell]

IME Google maps always show the current year in their watermark, but the photos are often several years old.

Fair enough.

 

[rahod1]

This makes me wonder... has there been any information in the news articles about what they had with them? We know there was a phone in dad's pocket and they had the baby carrier and Camelback. Did they have anything else? Any other supplies at all?

The fact that only ONE Camel Back bladder was reported (with residual water still in it) is very telling in and of itself. That's not nearly enough for two adults on a four hour hike in hot weather with a 3Mile return hike uphill, Child and Dog not withstanding.

 

[everybodhi]

Fair enough.

Here is a photo above the switchback where they recovered the bodies.

<modsnip: No link to image. All images require a link to the source>

 

[Knox]

I understand why some tissue samples etc. might take weeks to test, but the water should have been tested by now - you might not be able to determine what it was tainted with, immediately, but you should be able to discern a binary tainted/not tainted result.

It’s also potentially a matter of public health and safety if their demise is tied to the algae blooms and they were drinking “filtered” water from the river that wasn’t really filtered. If the water came back clean, they should tell the public that, too.

State Water Board said their results would be back by the weekend. On my way to bed, but maybe someone else can check to see if they have been posted.

 

[McSpy]

I don’t know which is more horrible for me to imagine: the helpless baby and pup dying first and parents overcome with grief or parents dying and babe and pup left to suffer. I’ve mentioned ad nauseam on this post that I have carried kids for miles in hot, rough terrain. I find it MUCH more plausible that my child would be fine, dressed in a thin, wicking UPF layer, under his sun shade attached to the backpack, sipping water from the Camelbak tube, while I overexerted myself climbing 1,500 ft in 1.5 miles carrying 35+ lbs. on my back.

But that doesn’t explain the death of the other parent. It’s very strange and terribly tragic they both overheated to the point of death before realizing they needed to change course. Moo

I read that the temp that day was 109 degrees. That is a brutal temperature. It is like a couple hiking in — 20 below zero frigid temps. Both could probably succumb to that severe temp too.

It is an unusual and unbelievably tragic case. I hope we get some answers on the cause. I’m just speculating.

 

[rahod1]

I don’t know which is more horrible for me to imagine: the helpless baby and pup dying first and parents overcome with grief or parents dying and babe and pup left to suffer. I’ve mentioned ad nauseam on this post that I have carried kids for miles in hot, rough terrain. I find it MUCH more plausible that my child would be fine, dressed in a thin, wicking UPF layer, under his sun shade attached to the backpack, sipping water from the Camelbak tube, while I overexerted myself climbing 1,500 ft in 1.5 miles carrying 35+ lbs. on my back.

But that doesn’t explain the death of the other parent. It’s very strange and terribly tragic they both overheated to the point of death before realizing they needed to change course. Moo

It's very difficult to establish any sequence in the deaths. They almost certainly didn't perish simultaneously. It's very possible the father fell ill earlier and the mother had to transfer the baby on her back while hiking back uphill. At some point the father collapsed and she decided to place the baby and dog next to him while she attempted to go it alone the rest of the way. Carrying the child wouldn't be an option since it would weigh her down. She may have advanced further and then decided to return. Just one of many scenarios. It's sad.

 

[WillieMac]

He said the scene where the family was found lacked any immediate clues as to what happened, with no signs of foul play or traumatic injuries.

Mr Briese said the baby was in a backpack carrier with the dog near her father but attached to him, while her mum was 30 yards away.
Final calls on Brit dad's phone may hold key to how family died on hiking trip

-And-

There were no signs of crime at the scene and no traumatic injuries to the bodies. The sheriff said Miju was “in a kangaroo bag close to her father, but not tied to her father,” and Hellen was located about 30 meters away. Their dog, Oksi, was lying next to the baby.
Family is found dead on a trail without signs of violence

Both of these stories were posted a few pages back. Each of them speaks about Miju being in a backpack/kangaroo bag near her Dad. One even goes so far as to say she was not "tied" to him.

I've not seen this information quoted as coming from Sheriff Briese in any US news story? Literary license?

I'm a couple of pages behind still but I strongly feel that we need to explore the term "attached" as it's used in reference to what most seem to assume is the dog being "attached" to the dad. I feel that this is a miscommunication, misinterpretation, or just a simple typo that happened earlier in the first thread (possibly around page 31 or 32). The only source I've found for this info so far (and I have spent well over an hour going back and rereading links from the first thread now) is this one from the Mirror in the UK that is cited here as well. I feel like the Sheriff's post cited a few pages ago in this thread #2 may actually clarify that. In that post the verbiage states that: "The sheriff said Miju was “in a kangaroo bag close to her father, but not tied to her father, and Hellen was located about 30 meters away". In the statement cited in the Mirror article, it states, "Mr Briese said the baby was in a backpack carrier with the dog near her father but attached to him, while her mum was 30 yards away". These seem to be very very similar statements. I believe they may well have both originated from the same statement but were perhaps more clearly interpreted in the second citation. The verbiage initially used was "not tied to". That has bothered me ever since I first read it. I would not use the term "tied to" to describe a dog on a leash. But I could see an English tabloid making that translation. I would be even MORE quick to believe that tabloid might use the term "tied to" if they were interpreting a statement meant to indicate that a baby in a sling type of carrier were not "attached" to the person the babybwas found beside.

And the reason I think we need to reevaluate that information is due to some of the other discussion from the first thread that centered around the dog being thoight to have been "leashed" ("attached") to dad. IIRC someone mentioned that they thought the dog could have more of an attachment to mom. And that they believed they had seen evidence to indicate that the dog often accompanied the family off-leash on their walks. So they then wondered why the dog may have been found near dad & the baby - rather than nearer mom.

<deep breath> bear with me, I know this is a long post but...I'll try to wrap it up.

So, if we reset and consider that perhaps the "attached" comment pertained to the baby & the dad, then we're back to not knowing if the dog was on a leash. And that reopens the question of why was the dog near dad & not mom. And to that point, I will go back to a comment I made earlier (possibly last thread) about my belief that the dog encountered difficulties first. This most likely would have slowed their hike and could have resulted in mom carrying the baby rather than dad ...as I'm guessing they could likely have refused to leave their beloved pet behind and decided to try to carry it out. I'm sure that scenario would have led to multiple delays and mom likely carrying the baby while dad had the dog. And, as I've said earlier, possibly to an end scenario where dad is overcome with heat & exertion and if forced to put the dog down and sit to rest. I would guess that mom would try to render aide as best she could but likely finally realized that she needed to go on ahead on her own. ***but here's the important part***: in this scenario, she must realize that she needs to leave the baby behind so she removes the carrier and places the baby beside dad. So where would she put the baby?! ...I'm thinking she'd put the baby in dad's shade. So dad is still coherent enough to realize this and props himself in a stabile enough position to maintain that shade as long as he can.

And if you've hung with me this long, perhaps you're already guessing my next thought: I wonder if the position of dad & baby's bodies might indicate where the shade might have been at the time they ended up there. If so? That could help LE establish a time of day when they found themselves in the positions they were found.

Or perhaps I'm just way too long winded and am grasping at straws and should find my way to bed for the night. ?? I dunno. Of course this is MOO.

 

[JMapes]

I didn't start thinking about this until yesterday. I'm not familiar with poisons (intentional). Nor natural contaminants that could be present in the water supply of their home, and not necessarily from the river (unintentional).

I don't suppose their house has been searched for any clues?

MOO.

 

[RickshawFan]

I agree. I just read that 3 or 4 people died of heat stroke in the last couple of months, while hiking in the Grand Canyon. Unfortunately, some people underestimate the danger of high temps.

Two different men, on two different days this week alone in Death Valley.

 

[McSpy]

It's funny how close but remote some trails can be. Mostly Harmless was 5 miles from a fire station, and about a mile from a really well traveled trail. But that mile was an eternity. I guess it was the same for this family.

Perhaps they were on their way back to the vehicle, but didn’t make it? They could have hiked 2 or 3 —or more miles and then decided to turn back because of the heat.

 

[rahod1]

I didn't start thinking about this until yesterday. I'm not familiar with poisons (intentional). Nor natural contaminants that could be present in the water supply of their home, and not necessarily from the river (unintentional).

I don't suppose their house has been searched for any clues?

MOO.

What is the most likely cause? We know they probably ventured out with insufficient water supply in extreme temps little shade and a challenging return hike up a steep mountain trail, with a baby and dog. All other scenarios fall well short. MOO

 

[WillieMac]

I'm a couple of pages behind still but I strongly feel that we need to explore the term "attached" as it's used in reference to what most seem to assume is the dog being "attached" to the dad. I feel that this is a miscommunication, misinterpretation, or just a simple typo that happened earlier in the first thread (possibly around page 31 or 32). The only source I've found for this info so far (and I have spent well over an hour going back and rereading links from the first thread now) is this one from the Mirror in the UK that is cited here as well. I feel like the Sheriff's post cited a few pages ago in this thread #2 may actually clarify that. In that post the verbiage states that: "The sheriff said Miju was “in a kangaroo bag close to her father, but not tied to her father, and Hellen was located about 30 meters away". In the statement cited in the Mirror article, it states, "Mr Briese said the baby was in a backpack carrier with the dog near her father but attached to him, while her mum was 30 yards away". These seem to be very very similar statements. I believe they may well have both originated from the same statement but were perhaps more clearly interpreted in the second citation. The verbiage initially used was "not tied to". That has bothered me ever since I first read it. I would not use the term "tied to" to describe a dog on a leash. But I could see an English tabloid making that translation. I would be even MORE quick to believe that tabloid might use the term "tied to" if they were interpreting a statement meant to indicate that a baby in a sling type of carrier were not "attached" to the person the babybwas found beside.

And the reason I think we need to reevaluate that information is due to some of the other discussion from the first thread that centered around the dog being thoight to have been "leashed" ("attached") to dad. IIRC someone mentioned that they thought the dog could have more of an attachment to mom. And that they believed they had seen evidence to indicate that the dog often accompanied the family off-leash on their walks. So they then wondered why the dog may have been found near dad & the baby - rather than nearer mom.

<deep breath> bear with me, I know this is a long post but...I'll try to wrap it up.

So, if we reset and consider that perhaps the "attached" comment pertained to the baby & the dad, then we're back to not knowing if the dog was on a leash. And that reopens the question of why was the dog near dad & not mom. And to that point, I will go back to a comment I made earlier (possibly last thread) about my belief that the dog encountered difficulties first. This most likely would have slowed their hike and could have resulted in mom carrying the baby rather than dad ...as I'm guessing they could likely have refused to leave their beloved pet behind and decided to try to carry it out. I'm sure that scenario would have led to multiple delays and mom likely carrying the baby while dad had the dog. And, as I've said earlier, possibly to an end scenario where dad is overcome with heat & exertion and if forced to put the dog down and sit to rest. I would guess that mom would try to render aide as best she could but likely finally realized that she needed to go on ahead on her own. ***but here's the important part***: in this scenario, she must realize that she needs to leave the baby behind so she removes the carrier and places the baby beside dad. So where would she put the baby?! ...I'm thinking she'd put the baby in dad's shade. So dad is still coherent enough to realize this and props himself in a stabile enough position to maintain that shade as long as he can.

And if you've hung with me this long, perhaps you're already guessing my next thought: I wonder if the position of dad & baby's bodies might indicate where the shade might have been at the time they ended up there. If so? That could help LE establish a time of day when they found themselves in the positions they were found.

Or perhaps I'm just way too long winded and am grasping at straws and should find my way to bed for the night. ?? I dunno. Of course this is MOO.

My apologies for replying to my own post ... but I thought my original post was long enough already.
In the long run, it doesn't really matter if the long winded scenario I laid out was accurate. But I think it may be worth considering whether or not the child may have been placed where it was found in an effort to hide it from the sun at the time it was placed there. I'm not sure that using that info to determine a time when that happened really gains us anything or not - but it seemed intriguing to me when I thought if it.

 

[JustReading01]

I think the father got heat stroke first. He had a larger mass, and carried the baby next to his body which increased his core heat. He tried to push through it carrying the baby still. Until he couldn’t.

He became too dizzy to stand/walk. The family discussed what to do. Neither of them wanted to leave the baby. Which made the discussion even longer, still in increasing heat. He probably went unconscious. By the time she left she was too sick, and fainted on the trail.

 

[Figuring]

I think the father got heat stroke first. He had a larger mass, and carried the baby next to his body which increased his core heat. He tried to push through it carrying the baby still. Until he couldn’t.

He became too dizzy to stand/walk. The family discussed what to do. Neither of them wanted to leave the baby. Which made the discussion even longer, still in increasing heat. He probably went unconscious. By the time she left she was too sick, and fainted on the trail.

That's exactly what I've been thinking too. I think perhaps they thought if they stopped, they could cool down. Perhaps their cognition was already being affected at that point. I think they may have sat down in the hopes of regrouping, & he fell unconscious. Some people have said, wouldn't Ellen have taken the baby, or the dog. But if she was truly desperate, perhaps she thought it was best to leave them so that she could go as fast as possible. The fact that she didn't take his phone used to seem weird to me, but now I've come to suspect they were far enough in a delirium that she might not have even thought of that. JMO.