- I agree that groups of people and their pets generally don't just die all at once. I think it's highly unlikely they all died at the same time. Their deaths could have occurred hours (or even a couple of days) apart.
- I agree that the "algae bloom" theory--while certainly worth exploring--is very unlikely to be the primary cause of anyone's death.
- People can live for many days without water, but almost no one is speculating that the family died of dehydration. A far more likely culprit is heat stroke. The high temperature that day was 109 degrees, and it was over 100 degrees between about 9:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. If you don't understand heat stroke or how lethal it is, I suggest browsing the posts in this thread and the first thread.
- Yes, humans are capable of horrific acts, but thus far there's been zero evidence indicating that anyone committed such an act here. Sure, anything is possible, and law enforcement should follow the evidence where it takes them, but in the complete absence of such evidence I'm not going to speculate that a mother or father murdered their family.
Hey thanks for your thoughts. My responses follow.
Strikes me a dying even a couple of days apart is unlikely. Your loved one, maybe with a baby, is sick to the point they can't move suddenly - you move. You don't wait for a chopper. They were all found together. Maybe they decided not to, but if you're right on the trail, seems to me you move.
Heat stroke en masse? This was a wooded area or near one, as I recall. Dogs, babies, and folks shouldn't all drop off from heat stroke within moments or even hours of each other with water sources nearby capable of giving them algae bloom or whatever. Or at least it's waaaaaaay off the scale of likelihood.
I disagree with you relative to your thoughts about "zero evidence". <modsnip> You've got an entirely dead family here - plus the dog, on or near a trafficked trail. I've seen at least some speculation about murder. No third-party hangs around to murder the dog too, unless the dog's a problem. Not a mark on the dog. No.
You take out the dog because it's best for the dog, so it won't suffer in your absence.
I'm a lawyer, licensed in two states, 25 years now in practice. I deal in evidence daily. And you're staring at a ton of admissible evidence. Probative value? I agree, there's more to do here before drawing conclusions. I'm just sayin', I've got a fair sense of where this is heading.
Happy to be wrong, by the way. Maybe.