CA - Jonathan Gerrish, Ellen Chung, daughter, 1 & dog, suspicious death hiking area, Aug 2021 #6

[ItalyReader]

Reposting as this was deleted due to being a response to a deleted post.

I agree 100% about this case being tragic and I absolutely empathize with the family.

At the very same time, I ask myself:

how would this story be viewed if:

- this family had been physically unattractive

- this family had been in a very low economic threshold

- the family looked different?

- the parents had survived but baby and dog perished

- or any combination of the above?


I have read a lot of comments here about “what a beautiful family” they were and lots of mention of their high economic status, I just don’t know if their beauty or privilege should excuse tragic mistakes.


also I think about how ignorance of the law is no excuse.


Asking in a different way, if the parents had survived but baby died, and if they were of
a different “look” OR economic OR attractiveness OR education category, would this story be viewed with as much sympathy?

Would the surviving parents face any consequences, legal or otherwise, for the death of their child?


If they had had 2 children, and one died and the other survived, would the surviving child be placed in protective child services custody while the parents were investigated?

In some families this would be the case - the children would be taken from the parents. Ask a social worker; they are experts here.

 

[Auntie Cipation]

BBM Actually that is not advised recently in a hiking area close to where I live a person got lost and SAR was trying to call the lost hiker with no luck. as it kept going to voicemail. The management team of our local SAR made a public statement advising against this. Luckily this lost hiker was rescued only by chance however. All of your other points are great.

Yes it's been debunked that this is even possible with no cell or wifi connection. I came across it in MSM just this morning but (Murphy's Law) can't find it now, so will post instead the link to Snopes' explanation: Can Stranded People with No Cell Service, Dying Battery Still Change Voicemail Greeting?

And, if the lost hiker story you're referring to is the same one that made national news, it's really unrelated as that hiker didn't attempt to change their voicemail message (at least not in the reports I saw) but rather didn't answer the phone when SAR was attempting to contact them, because the call was coming from an unknown number. D'oh!

Missing hiker ignored calls from rescuers because it was an unknown number

 

[RedHaus]

DBM ~ a fatal formatting issue~

 

[RedHaus]

DBM - having some trouble... sorry.

 

[RedHaus]

Did anyone else notice in Sheriff Briese's 9/30/2021 presser on this case, no manner of death was announced? Only cause of death. And that includes the Q&A session if my notes are accurate.

No, I haven’t heard about the manner of death for any of the family. I linked a previous story about a young football player who died of heatstroke at school, and it was ruled an accident due to environmental factors. (ETA: bbm): “A 13-year-old Silver Spring youth who collapsed last month during a football practice at St. John's College High School died as a result of heat stroke, the D.C. medical examiner's office said yesterday. "It was an accidental death as a result of the exercise in a hot environment," said Randy Moshos, director of forensic investigations for the medical examiner's office.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/arch...by-heat/a134ded8-ee9b-4df6-b189-885c2524947f/

Wasn't the manner of death question shuffled to a non-response with his reply about how the cell phone is still being analyzed?

Thank you, @Seattle1 and @Lexiintoronto, for your affirmations. So, I want to reiterate what I think is a very important point, IMO: You'd think with heat stroke / dehydration as cause of death for the three humans, then manner of death would be 'accident' per Lexiintoronto's example, above.

Does the fact the Sheriff did NOT announce a manner of death and deflected a related question, mean manner of death is in fact still undetermined? If so, since the SO had previously announced suicide was ruled out, that leaves accident, homicide, and natural manners of death as possible findings for this case.

This is very important, IMO, because some sleuthers trying to explain the outcome remain curious whether manner of death could in fact be homicide for one or more.

 

[deadfoot13]

Reposting as this was deleted due to being a response to a deleted post.


If they had had 2 children, and one died and the other survived, would the surviving child be placed in protective child services custody while the parents were investigated?

In some families this would be the case - the children would be taken from the parents. Ask a social worker; they are experts here.

RSBM

I work for Children's Services in NY, not CA, but with that said, CA & NY parallel each other on many things social-welfare-related.

It's not so black and white as you present; for starters, there's a huge difference between an accident and abuse/neglect. On any report of suspected (neglect, abuse) there must be an assessment of child safety and the family's risk factors. The family's history is reviewed, their strengths and supports are evaluated. If it is determined that the child isn't safe or if there is imminent risk to his/her safety, then the parent(s) will be asked to help make a plan for the child to stay with (family, friends) while we assist the family in resolving whatever is putting the child at risk. If there are no suitable resources for the child or the parent/caretaker is unwilling/unable to assist in planning for the child, that's when Foster Care/out-of-home placements and changes in custody come into play.

Parents make mistakes, and sometimes those mistakes are pretty egregious, but it doesn't mean we automatically snatch their remaining kids and terminate their rights. People have to be given the chance to improve themselves and parent appropriately. I can't say that in my 30+ years of history here that I've ever even heard of a case involving a child being harmed in a situation like this, but I've seen plenty of other bad accidents that involved serious injury and didn't rise to the level of a removal (it's mostly lack-of-supervision stuff, like severe burns from boiling water or catching the curtains on fire, or loss of an eye or limb from motorcycle/4-wheeler/snowmobile accidents, or accidental drownings, etc.) Although each instance is heartbreaking and many times disturbing because it could have been prevented, we still have to look at the big picture before taking someone's child.

If you're asking can it happen at all, ever? Sure, things could certainly be bad enough in the home that we would have to immediately take and place the remaining children to keep them safe. Does that happen a lot? Again, it depends. The decision to remove a child isn't made in a vacuum, there are many, many things that factor into it before it's presented to a judge.

I know, it's frustrating to people who have specific expectations for parents and ideals as to the proper way to love and cherish a child, but the reality is not everyone parents the same and that's allowed. "Helicopter parenting" is a popular term and many people push for parents to control ever minute bit of a child's existence with the goal of keeping them safe, but then I think about my own upbringing and realize that I wouldn't be the person I am today if I hadn't had the opportunity to accrue the injuries and scars that came my way. We can pass judgement on people all we want, but it also means that someone is passing judgement on us and we may not live up to their expectations for how we (parent a child, treat our dog, mow our lawn, and on and on...) It is what it is. The important thing is that at least this group has learned from this tragedy and can maybe take steps to share those lessons with others and prevent it from happening again.

Edited to add my MOO...

 

[MrsEmmaPeel]

Amen, @deadfoot13. So many good posts on this thread lately! I never knew Websleuths was such a richly philosophical place. I so appreciate the varied perspectives on so many important issues attached to this case, and accidents and malfeasance, in general.

 

[ItalyReader]

RSBM

I work for Children's Services in NY, not CA, but with that said, CA & NY parallel each other on many things social-welfare-related.

It's not so black and white as you present; for starters, there's a huge difference between an accident and abuse/neglect. On any report of suspected (neglect, abuse) there must be an assessment of child safety and the family's risk factors. The family's history is reviewed, their strengths and supports are evaluated. If it is determined that the child isn't safe or if there is imminent risk to his/her safety, then the parent(s) will be asked to help make a plan for the child to stay with (family, friends) while we assist the family in resolving whatever is putting the child at risk. If there are no suitable resources for the child or the parent/caretaker is unwilling/unable to assist in planning for the child, that's when Foster Care/out-of-home placements and changes in custody come into play.

Parents make mistakes, and sometimes those mistakes are pretty egregious, but it doesn't mean we automatically snatch their remaining kids and terminate their rights. People have to be given the chance to improve themselves and parent appropriately. I can't say that in my 30+ years of history here that I've ever even heard of a case involving a child being harmed in a situation like this, but I've seen plenty of other bad accidents that involved serious injury and didn't rise to the level of a removal (it's mostly lack-of-supervision stuff, like severe burns from boiling water or catching the curtains on fire, or loss of an eye or limb from motorcycle/4-wheeler/snowmobile accidents, or accidental drownings, etc.) Although each instance is heartbreaking and many times disturbing because it could have been prevented, we still have to look at the big picture before taking someone's child.

If you're asking can it happen at all, ever? Sure, things could certainly be bad enough in the home that we would have to immediately take and place the remaining children to keep them safe. Does that happen a lot? Again, it depends. The decision to remove a child isn't made in a vacuum, there are many, many things that factor into it before it's presented to a judge.

I know, it's frustrating to people who have specific expectations for parents and ideals as to the proper way to love and cherish a child, but the reality is not everyone parents the same and that's allowed. "Helicopter parenting" is a popular term and many people push for parents to control ever minute bit of a child's existence with the goal of keeping them safe, but then I think about my own upbringing and realize that I wouldn't be the person I am today if I hadn't had the opportunity to accrue the injuries and scars that came my way. We can pass judgement on people all we want, but it also means that someone is passing judgement on us and we may not live up to their expectations for how we (parent a child, treat our dog, mow our lawn, and on and on...) It is what it is. The important thing is that at least this group has learned from this tragedy and can maybe take steps to share those lessons with others and prevent it from happening again.

Edited to add my MOO...

I appreciate hearing from someone in child social services very much. I have sincere respect for the work you do, because it is important, difficult work, not for the faint for heart. Thank you.

Was also discussing this case today with a friend visiting now from the USA who works in social work.

I hope I did not suggest terminating parents’ rights immediately! I said protective custody while investigation occurred.

My main question was if all families are treated similarly no matter what is their socio-economic standing, level of attractiveness, general appearance, education, etc. Fairness in these regards all too often does not appear to occur. MOO.

 

[Jade]

Whether a family is beautiful or not, inside or outside, should not be a factor in whether they are placed on a pedestal on the one hand or condemned on the other.

Unsuccessful or unattractive families should be mourned and forgiven just as attractive and successful families are. Right?

Of course.

But isn't it also discrimination thinking this family are somehow getting more than their due?

Attractiveness and success is subjective so there are other factors that contribute to the interest.

This case presented as a mystery.

An entire family and dog found dead on the trail is going to get attention.

Now if you were saying what about poor so and so's family and dog that were also found on a trail near a popular destination at about the same time then we have a comparison to the attention of this case.

I don't find the family all that attractive or successful, respectfully, in a state where there is an excess of stereotypical beauty and success.

WS is the kindest, most considerate community of posters.

I'm humbled how lovely they are to family members on threads who are so grateful to able express their love for the missing knowing posters do not judge the looks, lifestyle, status or sobriety of the victim.


All imo

 

[RickshawFan]

IMO, the beautiful family is not just physical appearance but in spirit also. It’s a recognition of the results of their hard work that brought them the achievement to have such a life, a happy family life, with dog, in a special area doing family things and for it all to go so wrong.

Snipped for focus
We actually don't know much about this family at all IMO. We have no idea if they were happy, what their "spirit" was, whether they were "beautiful".
We may have some posts or photos on SM, but IMO those are never a reliable reflection of a person: they tend more towards "aspirational" or "cultivated".
These characteristics IMO are in the eyes of the beholder. I might have a whole different feel about it than the next person. But we also have zero information to go on about the lives of this family, so who's to say what their inner workings were like?

 

[5W's]

Interesting question I don't know but there are so many questions in this case that even if the people in this case were from different socio economic or race it would leave us baffled. That's my opinion only, though. The reason I say that is because during cooler temperatures this area is well used so I
think it would get the attention.

Reposting as this was deleted due to being a response to a deleted post.

I personally think when it comes to the strange or bizarre aspects of a case, the mystery of what happened I think other factors such as race, attractiveness, or socio-economic status don't matter. The more mysterious the case the longer it will be etched in the public's mind. Take for example 9 yr. old Asha Degree's disappearance in 2000. Or the young black man who disappeared while with a work crew as he was behind the others, ( I don't remember the name at the moment) change had fallen out of his pocket as if he had turned upside down, anyways so many bizarre aspects to his case even though he disappeared in the 90's I believe we still wonder what happened to him.

I agree 100% about this case being tragic and I absolutely empathize with the family.

At the very same time, I ask myself:

how would this story be viewed if:

- this family had been physically unattractive

- this family had been in a very low economic threshold

- the family looked different?

- the parents had survived but baby and dog perished

- or any combination of the above?


I have read a lot of comments here about “what a beautiful family” they were and lots of mention of their high economic status, I just don’t know if their beauty or privilege should excuse tragic mistakes.


also I think about how ignorance of the law is no excuse.


Asking in a different way, if the parents had survived but baby died, and if they were of
a different “look” OR economic OR attractiveness OR education category, would this story be viewed with as much sympathy?

Would the surviving parents face any consequences, legal or otherwise, for the death of their child?


If they had had 2 children, and one died and the other survived, would the surviving child be placed in protective child services custody while the parents were investigated?

In some families this would be the case - the children would be taken from the parents. Ask a social worker; they are experts here.

 

[deadfoot13]

I appreciate hearing from someone in child social services very much. I have sincere respect for the work you do, because it is important, difficult work, not for the faint for heart. Thank you.

Was also discussing this case today with a friend visiting now from the USA who works in social work.

I hope I did not suggest terminating parents’ rights immediately! I said protective custody while investigation occurred.

My main question was if all families are treated similarly no matter what is their socio-economic standing, level of attractiveness, general appearance, education, etc. Fairness in these regards all too often does not appear to occur. MOO.

You did not suggest immediate termination, but there are many people who assume a transfer in custody is the same as losing parental rights, so I tend to tie them together.

I can't speak for all agencies, but at the agency where I work we honestly strive to treat everyone fairly. We have a pretty good relationship with the public, and since most of us come from this area our lives are interwoven with those of our clients. The vast majority of our clientele are from lower-income households, and if anything, we work harder to assist them because they have many more barriers to success, like no transportation and little to no disposable income, whereas those clients with sufficient income are expected to meet many of their own needs. I have never seen anyone here cater to a client who was affluent or a public figure, not in any of our divisions. I'm sure out there in the world it does happen that certain people are given preferential treatment based on socio-economic class, etc., but I don't think it's a trend.

 

[ItalyReader]

You did not suggest immediate termination, but there are many people who assume a transfer in custody is the same as losing parental rights, so I tend to tie them together.

I can't speak for all agencies, but at the agency where I work we honestly strive to treat everyone fairly. We have a pretty good relationship with the public, and since most of us come from this area our lives are interwoven with those of our clients. The vast majority of our clientele are from lower-income households, and if anything, we work harder to assist them because they have many more barriers to success, like no transportation and little to no disposable income, whereas those clients with sufficient income are expected to meet many of their own needs. I have never seen anyone here cater to a client who was affluent or a public figure, not in any of our divisions. I'm sure out there in the world it does happen that certain people are given preferential treatment based on socio-economic class, etc., but I don't think it's a trend.

You did not suggest immediate termination, but there are many people who assume a transfer in custody is the same as losing parental rights, so I tend to tie them together.

I can't speak for all agencies, but at the agency where I work we honestly strive to treat everyone fairly. We have a pretty good relationship with the public, and since most of us come from this area our lives are interwoven with those of our clients. The vast majority of our clientele are from lower-income households, and if anything, we work harder to assist them because they have many more barriers to success, like no transportation and little to no disposable income, whereas those clients with sufficient income are expected to meet many of their own needs. I have never seen anyone here cater to a client who was affluent or a public figure, not in any of our divisions. I'm sure out there in the world it does happen that certain people are given preferential treatment based on socio-economic class, etc., but I don't think it's a trend.

I am sure you and your colleagues strive to be fair! Truly.
I was talking about something else.
The unequal treatment I was referring to is in the public eye, by individuals, not by professionals or public entities.
Thank you again for all you do.

 

[deadfoot13]

I am sure you and your colleagues strive to be fair! Truly.
I was talking about something else.
The unequal treatment I was referring to is in the public eye, by individuals, not by professionals or public entities.
Thank you again for all you do.

My mistake, and I apologize for blathering on

I would say that in general terms, yes, there is unequal treatment everywhere based on traits seen as more favorable. It shouldn't be that way, but it's rampant.

 

[Jade]

Snipped for focus
We actually don't know much about this family at all IMO. We have no idea if they were happy, what their "spirit" was, whether they were "beautiful".
We may have some posts or photos on SM, but IMO those are never a reliable reflection of a person: they tend more towards "aspirational" or "cultivated".
These characteristics IMO are in the eyes of the beholder. I might have a whole different feel about it than the next person. But we also have zero information to go on about the lives of this family, so who's to say what their inner workings were like?

That's so true.

 

[rahod1]

BBM Actually that is not advised recently in a hiking area close to where I live a person got lost and SAR was trying to call the lost hiker with no luck. as it kept going to voicemail. The management team of our local SAR made a public statement advising against this. Luckily this lost hiker was rescued only by chance however. All of your other points are great.

Was the cell service operating in the area? Actually I think putting a * I'm lost* message in the voice mail is preferable if there's NO CELL SERVICE available. MOO

 

[Lex Parsimoniae]

Thank you, @Seattle1 and @Lexiintoronto, for your affirmations. So, I want to reiterate what I think is a very important point, IMO: You'd think with heat stroke / dehydration as cause of death for the three humans, then manner of death would be 'accident' per Lexiintoronto's example, above.

Does the fact the Sheriff did NOT announce a manner of death and deflected a related question, mean manner of death is in fact still undetermined? If so, since the SO had previously announced suicide was ruled out, that leaves accident, homicide, and natural manners of death as possible findings for this case.

This is very important, IMO, because some sleuthers trying to explain the outcome remain curious whether manner of death could in fact be homicide for one or more.

Good point. Maybe someone with legal training has an opinion they would share. I think if one or both adults had survived, they would be in legal jeopardy, like when a child gets left in a hot car. But what happens when there are no survivors? No idea. MOO

 

[rahod1]

Excellent post.

I think what makes this tragedy a compelling story are the unique and bizzare circumstances.....finding ALL FOUR MEMBERS dead on the trail with NO APPARENT CAUSE at the time. THAT'S what drew me (and I suspect most people) to this message board, ethnicity and *attractiveness* or social status aside. MOO

 

[Lex Parsimoniae]

Snipped for focus
We actually don't know much about this family at all IMO. We have no idea if they were happy, what their "spirit" was, whether they were "beautiful".
We may have some posts or photos on SM, but IMO those are never a reliable reflection of a person: they tend more towards "aspirational" or "cultivated".
These characteristics IMO are in the eyes of the beholder. I might have a whole different feel about it than the next person. But we also have zero information to go on about the lives of this family, so who's to say what their inner workings were like?

In the beginning there were MSM interviews with friends, associates and people who had interacted with them locally. Those people all said good things about them. I also never saw any negative info, like mention of arrest records or how many times the sheriff had been called to their house. The search warrants were executed and "nothing of interest" was found. I don't feel I know a lot about them, but I wouldn't go so far as to say I have "zero information" to go on about the lives of the family. What I've seen (except for that catastrophic last day) is positive. MOO

 

[rahod1]

Thank you, @Seattle1 and @Lexiintoronto, for your affirmations. So, I want to reiterate what I think is a very important point, IMO: You'd think with heat stroke / dehydration as cause of death for the three humans, then manner of death would be 'accident' per Lexiintoronto's example, above.

Does the fact the Sheriff did NOT announce a manner of death and deflected a related question, mean manner of death is in fact still undetermined? If so, since the SO had previously announced suicide was ruled out, that leaves accident, homicide, and natural manners of death as possible findings for this case.

This is very important, IMO, because some sleuthers trying to explain the outcome remain curious whether manner of death could in fact be homicide for one or more.

https://name.memberclicks.net/assets/docs/MANNEROFDEATH.pdf
"Risk-taking behavior poses challenges when classifying manner of death. More and more, people are engaging in risky sports, recreational activities, and other personal behaviors. Injury or death, when it occurs during such activities, is not entirely unexpected, prompting the argument that such deaths may not truly be “accidents.” Further, relevant differences in the nature and extent of risk, when comparing risky activities, are difficult to clearly identify. For example, how does placing an “unloaded” gun to the head and pulling the trigger (Roulette) differ from jumping from a bridge on an elastic cord, engaging in sexual acts with a noose around the neck, or participating in a sport in which blows to the head are part of the “game.”? These are challenging questions."