CA - Jonathan Gerrish, Ellen Chung, daughter, 1 & dog, suspicious death hiking area, Aug 2021 #3

[Auntie Cipation]

It's possible that they were seen in their car and that they went somewhere else first, for example, to get breakfast. Perhaps that information has come to the attention of LE or perhaps they have the geo info from the phone now. It sounds like a correction to the assumption that at 7:45 am they were definitely on the way to the trail directly when seen in car. MOO. More details should be forthcoming soon.

Possibly, but I had the impression they lived pretty much at the end of the neighborhood leading toward the trailhead, so going anywhere other than maybe a neighbor's home would mean driving in the other direction.

If that's correct, then their delay options between being seen early and possibly not starting a hike until later, at least the ones I can think of right off the top of my head, are:

• they drove to the trailhead but then sat in the car for a while before setting out
• they drove farther up the mountain for unknown reasons before returning to the trailhead
• they turned around sometime after being seen driving, to get something forgotten at home, or to go to a store first, for gas/coffee/diapers/breakfast/anything else they felt they needed before the hike

Just trying to brainstorm options.

I would tend to assume they started hiking not long after they were seen driving at 7:45am, but I'd sure like to know why LE seemed to initially think they didn't set out until afternoon.

MOO

 

[RickshawFan]

You said it perfectly, and I grapple with this as well: “what prevented them from cutting their losses & turning around & heading back within the first mile of their venture?”

They might have turned around immediately before the spot they were found. That still wouldn't be great, but....
My scenario was the dog was off leash, as evidently he normally was. And the heat was making him run off to try and find a more comfortable place (my dog did this once when we were in a burn area). Momma goes looking for him and lags behind. He's her dog. Dad and baby keep going a bit or just stop right there. He puts baby down beside him ('cos no one wants to have that much weight on their back) and then sits down to wait while Momma catches up. Right in the trail is as good a spot as any. He's facing uphill, because Momma was trying to locate the dog uphill from where Dad and baby were. They just wait. In the meantime, the dog shows up. Dad leashes the dog, so no more running off. They continue to wait for Momma. In the meantime, something has happened to Mom just uphill from where they are. But they still wait. Until it's too late for all of them.

This means, the family didn't go nearly as far as people are thinking. They were doing a short out and back. Not all the way to the river. Not the loop.

The switchbacks present a question mark in this scenario—and maybe every scenario. If you're on a switchback, because of the way it zigs back on itself, you should be able to see someone a bit more up the trail than if the trail was straight. This would be even more true if you look down. So, what role did this play in the layout of the victims?

 

[rahod1]

I would tend to assume they started hiking not long after they were seen driving at 7:45am, but I'd sure like to know why LE seemed to initially think they didn't set out until afternoon.

MOO

If they were seen driving to the trail at 7:45AM, that would indicate they were set to start early. I don't see them delaying by much...10AM would be a stretch. Just MOO

 

[rahod1]

This means, the family didn't go nearly as far as people are thinking. They were doing a short out and back. Not all the way to the river. Not the loop.

Prints should tell the tale. Were there compatible shoe and dog prints farther down to the river? Did the same prints show up on the other trail, indicating a loop??

 

[NSamuelle]

They might have turned around immediately before the spot they were found. That still wouldn't be great, but....
My scenario was the dog was off leash, as evidently he normally was. And the heat was making him run off to try and find a more comfortable place (my dog did this once when we were in a burn area). Momma goes looking for him and lags behind. He's her dog. Dad and baby keep going a bit or just stop right there. He puts baby down beside him ('cos no one wants to have that much weight on their back) and then sits down to wait while Momma catches up. Right in the trail is as good a spot as any. He's facing uphill, because Momma was trying to locate the dog uphill from where Dad and baby were. They just wait. In the meantime, the dog shows up. Dad leashes the dog, so no more running off. They continue to wait for Momma. In the meantime, something has happened to Mom just uphill from where they are. But they still wait. Until it's too late for all of them.

This means, the family didn't go nearly as far as people are thinking. They were doing a short out and back. Not all the way to the river. Not the loop.

The switchbacks present a question mark in this scenario—and maybe every scenario. If you're on a switchback, because of the way it zigs back on itself, you should be able to see someone a bit more up the trail than if the trail was straight. This would be even more true if you look down. So, what role did this play in the layout of the victims?

We keep getting caught up on whether to believe LE’s “belief” as stated in articles that they were at the *end* of an 8.5 mile loop (so, ~7 miles into it) and had already passed the river and gone down towards the switchbacks. LE really needs to clarify that. They said there were footprints.

From the SF Chronicle: “Investigators believe the family hiked most of a grueling 8.5-mile loop — including 5 miles of steep southern exposure trail with little to no trees or shade in 103 to 109 degree heat — before succumbing on the return to their truck on a steep switchback.”

Also from SF Chronicle: “When the deputy found the truck, a search-and-rescue team hiked down the steep and straight road with flashlights and found shoe and paw prints similar to what you’d expect from a family of that size with a dog, Briese said.”

So it does appear that LE reached their conclusions re the 8.5M route based on prints.

 

[LifeIsAMystery]

If they were seen driving to the trail at 7:45AM, that would indicate they were set to start early. I don't see them delaying by much...10AM would be a stretch. Just MOO

They were seen driving in the direction of the trail, anyone local know if there are other possible destinations in that area? Coffee places, etc? LE stating that they started "mid-morning" may indicate that they have evidence they did not start immediately after they were seen. Or it can be a misunderstanding and semantics. Or maybe the baby fell asleep in the car and they let her sleep for a while before putting her in the pack?

 

[Seni]

Previous poster alluded to the possible testing of new equipment, such as baby carrier, Ok this could have been new shoes also, not worn in and causing painful blisters, all adding to the agony.
With regard to the mention of "avid" hickers, we have biologists sign up for expeditions, meeting up with all requirements supposedly. But we had to fish them out of the rivers by their hair. Because they cannot swim.
Earlier this year, one of our biologists, due to join us on expedidition, drowned and died whilst investigating fish movements in rapids. He was contracted by one of the main Universities
so far, we know that he did not have:
- breakfast
- checking of boats/motors
- life jacket
Everyone else thrown from the boat survived, even if it meant hours in water.

 

[mickey2942]

Stay safe this weekend peeps! We are going hiking, but not too far. This has been an amazing thread for learning. Sadly.

 

[NSamuelle]

Has anyone else noticed inconsistencies between maps indicating “where they were found”? I’ll try to post images but it’s hard to post and credit 3 images per the TOS on my iPhone. Searching “Chung Gerrish map” and navigating to images should show you what I mean.

 

[RickshawFan]

Previous poster alluded to the possible testing of new equipment, such as baby carrier, Ok this could have been new shoes also, not worn in and causing painful blisters, all adding to the agony.
With regard to the mention of "avid" hickers, we have biologists sign up for expeditions, meeting up with all requirements supposedly. But we had to fish them out of the rivers by their hair. Because they cannot swim.
Earlier this year, one of our biologists, due to join us on expedidition, drowned and died whilst investigating fish movements in rapids. He was contracted by one of the main Universities
so far, we know that he did not have:
- breakfast
- checking of boats/motors
- life jacket
Everyone else thrown from the boat survived, even if it meant hours in water.

Great comparative example with the biologists.
They may have been “avid” hikers but had always done their hiking on guided trips on exotic vacations. This is not at all the same as planning your own trip: you can easily overestimate your abilities and underestimate the conditions.
It’s very easy to get awful blisters in hot weather. Added to that, women are often sold boots that are too small to start with. Then, when it gets hot, their feet swell. And maybe the socks aren’t right. E.g. cotton socks should never be worn for hiking because they get soaked with sweat and crease or bunch up. This means your feet are wet and the creases are rubbing. This is a recipe for bad blisters.

 

[woods]

Autopsies on the family and a necropsy on the dog were inconclusive while toxicology results remain pending. Some results could come as early as Wednesday, Kristie Mitchell, spokesperson for the sheriff's office, told CNN.

Search warrants for the family's home and cars turned up no significant evidence. Their phones have been collected and are undergoing data extraction by the FBI.
Trails and campgrounds near Yosemite where a family and their dog were found dead have been closed because of 'unknown hazards,' officials say - CNN

 

[Auntie Cipation]

They might have turned around immediately before the spot they were found. That still wouldn't be great, but....
My scenario was the dog was off leash, as evidently he normally was. And the heat was making him run off to try and find a more comfortable place (my dog did this once when we were in a burn area). Momma goes looking for him and lags behind. He's her dog. Dad and baby keep going a bit or just stop right there. He puts baby down beside him ('cos no one wants to have that much weight on their back) and then sits down to wait while Momma catches up. Right in the trail is as good a spot as any. He's facing uphill, because Momma was trying to locate the dog uphill from where Dad and baby were. They just wait. In the meantime, the dog shows up. Dad leashes the dog, so no more running off. They continue to wait for Momma. In the meantime, something has happened to Mom just uphill from where they are. But they still wait. Until it's too late for all of them.

This means, the family didn't go nearly as far as people are thinking. They were doing a short out and back. Not all the way to the river. Not the loop.

The switchbacks present a question mark in this scenario—and maybe every scenario. If you're on a switchback, because of the way it zigs back on itself, you should be able to see someone a bit more up the trail than if the trail was straight. This would be even more true if you look down. So, what role did this play in the layout of the victims?

I've been wondering this too. Since they were found in the switchbacky section of the trail, mom being 100ft away might mean within view of the others, or might mean around a corner out of view. I wish we knew which.

If they were seen driving to the trail at 7:45AM, that would indicate they were set to start early. I don't see them delaying by much...10AM would be a stretch. Just MOO

Oh, I completely agree. But there keep being reports of midmorning and even afternoon, and the afternoon comment was attributed to LE, which makes me give it some credibility, until they retract or correct.

They were seen driving in the direction of the trail, anyone local know if there are other possible destinations in that area? Coffee places, etc? LE stating that they started "mid-morning" may indicate that they have evidence they did not start immediately after they were seen. Or it can be a misunderstanding and semantics. Or maybe the baby fell asleep in the car and they let her sleep for a while before putting her in the pack?

Do we know their address? I've been assuming they live in the Jerseydale area or even farther upslope. Per google maps, there is nothing but maybe a Bed and Breakfast in the area, with quite a drive down to the town of Mariposa. Moving to that kind of remoteness is dramatically different IMO from moving to a small town but in town. One can only assume that they chose that level of remoteness intentionally.

It does take a while, in my experience, to get the habits in place, for example, to get your groceries only once a week and better not forget anything because if you do it's an hour's drive back to town. Or forgetting to get gas as your last errand each and every time you go to town.

If we know their actual address could someone please remind me?

Thank you and MOO

 

[anya]

Has anyone else noticed inconsistencies between maps indicating “where they were found”? I’ll try to post images but it’s hard to post and credit 3 images per the TOS on my iPhone. Searching “Chung Gerrish map” and navigating to images should show you what I mean.

Yes I have. I thought I was going a bit wonky. Thank you! …

 

[woods]

Do we know their address? I've been assuming they live in the Jerseydale area or even farther upslope. Per google maps, there is nothing but maybe a Bed and Breakfast in the area, with quite a drive down to the town of Mariposa. Moving to that kind of remoteness is dramatically different IMO from moving to a small town but in town. One can only assume that they chose that level of remoteness intentionally.

It does take a while, in my experience, to get the habits in place, for example, to get your groceries only once a week and better not forget anything because if you do it's an hour's drive back to town. Or forgetting to get gas as your last errand each and every time you go to town.

If we know their actual address could someone please remind me?

Thank you and MOO

I have their address, but is it considered doxxing or against this website’s rules if I post it?

 

[Auntie Cipation]

I have their address, but is it considered doxxing or against this website’s rules if I post it?

not sure -- I think it's ok because they are the victims, but maybe best to ask a mod first?

Or maybe just say the neighborhood? That's sufficient for our purposes of thinking about whether they might have had commercial "errands" near their home.

 

[SophieRose]

not sure -- I think it's ok because they are the victims, but maybe best to ask a mod first?

Or maybe just say the neighborhood? That's sufficient for our purposes of thinking about whether they might have had commercial "errands" near their home.

They bought a house in Darrah last year and recently bought a house in Jerseyville. Plus Jonathan had bought two homes in Mariposa County before that.

 

[woods]

not sure -- I think it's ok because they are the victims, but maybe best to ask a mod first?

Or maybe just say the neighborhood? That's sufficient for our purposes of thinking about whether they might have had commercial "errands" near their home.

They lived in Carleton Rd from what I see. It’s a 21 minute drive from their home to the trail.

 

[Auntie Cipation]

Thanks -- if they lived on Carleton Rd that's quite far from where I imagined.

But even so, if they access the trail by cutting across Triangle Road to Darrah and then up, I still don't see any commercial area, stores or gas stations etc.

So any morning errands either would have been back home or to another home, or quite a detour into Mariposa or another town for anything commercial. MOO

Now I wonder exactly where they were seen driving at 7:45am? I don't think that's been made public, has it?

 

[wary]

Possibly, but I had the impression they lived pretty much at the end of the neighborhood leading toward the trailhead, so going anywhere other than maybe a neighbor's home would mean driving in the other direction.

If that's correct, then their delay options between being seen early and possibly not starting a hike until later, at least the ones I can think of right off the top of my head, are:

• they drove to the trailhead but then sat in the car for a while before setting out
• they drove farther up the mountain for unknown reasons before returning to the trailhead
• they turned around sometime after being seen driving, to get something forgotten at home, or to go to a store first, for gas/coffee/diapers/breakfast/anything else they felt they needed before the hike

Just trying to brainstorm options.

I would tend to assume they started hiking not long after they were seen driving at 7:45am, but I'd sure like to know why LE seemed to initially think they didn't set out until afternoon.

MOO

Well, the afternoon idea, as I remember it, was phrased by a journalist, not a direct quote from LE. My best guess is that he or she mangled whatever LE said—

 

[swedepete]

They lived in Carleton Rd from what I see. It’s a 21 minute drive from their home to the trail.

And the Darrah Park is apparently pretty much around the corner from their home...That would have been a more appropriate place for a walk on that horribly hot (and apparently also humid) day, IMO....