CA - Jonathan Gerrish, Ellen Chung, daughter, 1 & dog, suspicious death hiking area, Aug 2021 #4

[PerplexedPatty]

I was thinking back to old cases. Seems like the more unusual cases wound up being solved close to home.
moo

 

[rahod1]

Autopsy and HS
pathophysiology of heat-related illness and death :: www.forensicmed.co.uk

The post-mortem diagnosis of heat-related deaths presents certain difficulties.

Firstly, pre-terminal or terminal body temperatures are often not available. Additionally, naked-eye and microscopic findings are non-specific or inconclusive and depend on the duration of survival after exposure.

The diagnosis of hyperthermia is based on scene investigation, the circumstances of death, and the reasonable exclusion of other causes of death.

A heat-related cause of death may be assumed if the investigations provide compelling evidence of continuous exposure to a hot environment, and fail to identify an independent cause of death

 

[wary]

RSBM
I always appreciate a fresh idea, @Parsnip, so thank you for taking the leap of faith. Despite the Mariposa SO declaring this investigation a homicide investigation (see an earlier post of mine with a quote), WS has asked us not to entertain notions of murder on this thread and I respect that.

But your scenario is about accidental poisoning so that seems fair game. And I think it would be fair to add a possible tangent to your scenario that: if the adults (or the dependents) succumbed first to an accidental poisoning then the other two may have succumbed to heat stroke by sticking together as faithful loved ones.

Here are two concerns with your scenario:

1. I am not sure about a grow ops clearing land with herbicides in the immediate area and accidentally poisoning the trail, since those are likely located off the beaten path.

2. No other animals were found dead in the area of the family - you'd think if it was a dose lethal enough to kill a baby, dog and/or two adults, other animals would die. Of course, maybe animals did die after the contamination and scavengers (i.e. vultures, coyotes, bald eagles) already got to the dead animals... the scavengers would die later.

On the other hand, here are two factoids that may support your scenario.

1. The scene where the family was recovered was initially treated as a HazMat scene: "The family was located in a remote area of the Sierra National Forest, according to the Mariposa County Sheriff's Office. Their deaths are "being handled as a hazmat and coroner investigation," the department said in a statement." Why??
'Beloved' Family and Dog Who Died in Mysterious 'Hazmat Situation' Had Moved to Enjoy Nature

2. I researched early on (can find it if folks need me to) that since the fire that destroyed the trees in the area of the S-L trail / Devil's Gulch, Chaparral vegetation had overgrown the S-L trail and efforts were underway to clear it to make it more passible. So a) it was a harder trail to traverse than just hot and dry, and b) herbicide use??

Again, thanks for giving this a shot... Others?

MOO

How about herbicides as a contributing factor, slowing one of the adults enough that the heat can do its work? And wild animals, inured to the heat, just don’t die?

MOO

 

[MrsEmmaPeel]

I think we all interpret things differently based on many factors, including life experiences, careers, etc.

Interestingly, there are some facts in this case.

1. It was too hot to be on these trails in August with a baby and dog, except in earliest morning.
2. The GC family was on one or both of these trails.
3. Death from heat stroke usually is inconclusive unless corroborated by a source other than autopsy.
4. Children and dogs are more susceptible to heat than adults.

LE believes the GC family proceeded down the Hites Cove Road trail and back up the Savage Lundy trail, based on their understanding of the footprints they found. Given the lack of activity on the trails in summer, it's likely the GC footprints (including dog prints) would not be hard to follow.

Members I respect have posted their own theories about the GC family hiking down the SL trail only. I get it. Until LE presents a case to the public, some things are open to question, in my opinion. However, if there had been any unusual footprint or wheel print activity around the family I would hope it would have been noted by LE. ie a scuffle, a 3rd adult, an ATV.

Finally, if anyone can get the full briefing from LE with all of their evidence, it will be family members, if anyone.

 

[MrsEmmaPeel]

RSBM
I always appreciate a fresh idea, @Parsnip,
On the other hand, here are two factoids that may support your scenario.

1. The scene where the family was recovered was initially treated as a HazMat scene: "The family was located in a remote area of the Sierra National Forest, according to the Mariposa County Sheriff's Office. Their deaths are "being handled as a hazmat and coroner investigation," the department said in a statement." Why??
'Beloved' Family and Dog Who Died in Mysterious 'Hazmat Situation' Had Moved to Enjoy Nature

2. I researched early on (can find it if folks need me to) that since the fire that destroyed the trees in the area of the S-L trail / Devil's Gulch, Chaparral vegetation had overgrown the S-L trail and efforts were underway to clear it to make it more passible. So a) it was a harder trail to traverse than just hot and dry, and b) herbicide use??

Again, thanks for giving this a shot... Others?

1. LE were shaken by the scene they found. It was unlike anything they'd ever encountered. (I have no clue what bodies in the sun look like after that much time, but I can imagine, shocking.) To be on the safe side and based on info they may have had from sources warning them about the algae, they declared it a Hazmat scene. MOO

2. Based on a statement of a member of the Mariposa Trail Group who helps maintain these trails, they do not maintain or visit these trails in July-Aug. As for growers, if the hillsides are bare, there is no cover for them to grow there. Google-earth is pretty clear how barren the SL Trail is. So who would be spraying? MOO

 

[sfinkz]

Out West, heat-wise, three events have caught my attention this summer (all outside the usual Mojave/Sonora desert hotspots).

The first week of summer, temps in the NW (OR, WA, BC) reach 110+F for a solid week. Over 1,000 recorded deaths attributed to the excessive heat.

The dozens of outdoor agricultural and construction workers who perished probably largely responsible for OSHA announcing last week its first-ever extreme heat workplace protections.

The vast majority, however, were of vulnerable populations; homeless, underlying conditions, elderly, housed in non air-conditioned heat-trapping buildings. (Babies and domesticated pets considered even more at-risk). After enduring the prolonged, extreme heat for a week, fatal cardio and cerebro events occur, sometimes weeks after.

The second week of July, highly-conditioned PK, an elite trail runner, raced to the top of the ridge. During the 24-day search, the extreme heat conditions on the day of his disappearance not seriously considered as a factor. (Foul play, injury, animal attack). Data recovered from his watch indicated he ‘cooked himself’, according to his friend, in the first 45 minutes and estimated to have passed away a couple of hours later.

The third week of August this family’s tragic story unfolded and we’ve been discussing it since.

Three events, affecting top athletes, casual recreational enthusiasts, workers, babies/pets, the elderly and disadvantaged in differing ways but sharing one commonality.

And it was not the harmonic convergence of the moon and stars. Simply, in each case, it was the hottest day of the year.

 

[Auntie Cipation]

I too can think of arguments against @Parsnip 's scenario.

I can't imagine an illegal grow on slopes so steep, nor so near to popular (except for July/Aug heat) trails. I think there would be plenty of places more hidden, both from the public and from land management activities such as trail maintenance etc, where illegal operations could go undetected or at least more so.

Second, an illegal grow would not put a plane in the air to aerially spray anything, as the plane would be visible and trackable. They would spray by hand or atv, or apply "whatever-cides" using their irrigation system, IMO.

Lastly, while I'm a staunch environmentalist opposed to all sorts of toxic stuff that others use on the regular in their landscaping and lawn care, I'm not aware of any "whatever-cide" that would kill instantly like that. I think more of increased cancer rates etc.

Someone earlier in the thread talked about trip wires that spray poison -- I suppose that's possible and I know nothing about what poisons might be used, but again I would fall back on a well-used road and trail system not being a likely location for illicit activity, combined with the idea that the poison would have to have been undetectable in the autopsy (or on the ground around the victims, assuming LE tested nearby soil and plants for poisons, which I think we read they did, given the river algae toxin focus at the beginning of the case).

I'm trying to come up with a scenario other than heat that makes sense to me, but so far have drawn a blank.

 

[Parsnip]

I too can think of arguments against @Parsnip 's scenario.

I can't imagine an illegal grow on slopes so steep, nor so near to popular (except for July/Aug heat) trails. I think there would be plenty of places more hidden, both from the public and from land management activities such as trail maintenance etc, where illegal operations could go undetected or at least more so.

Second, an illegal grow would not put a plane in the air to aerially spray anything, as the plane would be visible and trackable. They would spray by hand or atv, or apply "whatever-cides" using their irrigation system, IMO.

Lastly, while I'm a staunch environmentalist opposed to all sorts of toxic stuff that others use on the regular in their landscaping and lawn care, I'm not aware of any "whatever-cide" that would kill instantly like that. I think more of increased cancer rates etc.

Someone earlier in the thread talked about trip wires that spray poison -- I suppose that's possible and I know nothing about what poisons might be used, but again I would fall back on a well-used road and trail system not being a likely location for illicit activity, combined with the idea that the poison would have to have been undetectable in the autopsy (or on the ground around the victims, assuming LE tested nearby soil and plants for poisons, which I think we read they did, given the river algae toxin focus at the beginning of the case).

I'm trying to come up with a scenario other than heat that makes sense to me, but so far have drawn a blank.

Thank you, @Auntie Cipation . Your arguments make sense. I really am outside of my areas of expertise, here. (As an aside, I enjoyed your use of “whatever-icide”.)

Anybody else with a possible world scenario?

 

[Auntie Cipation]

I do, however, have some theoretical questions to ask that might get people thinking outside the usual box:

1. What if the witness who saw the vehicle heading up the road toward the trails -- was mistaken? What if it wasn't actually them or their vehicle?

2. What if it WAS them in their vehicle, but they went somewhere else first that morning, and only came back down to the HC/SL area later? Later on Sunday or even not until Monday sometime?

3. What if -- as I speculated once earlier -- they didn't set out all as a family but one adult (presumably Jon, either alone or with dog) set out initially, and then the others (presumably Ellen and baby) arrived later?

All three of these seem unlikely but maybe they will trigger some ideas.

MOO

 

[jonjon747]

RSBM

I understand that it's fairly unfathomable that people would put themselves out in life-risking conditions especially with a vulnerable baby and dog. We can have opinions on why they were there, but are not permitted to discuss it. My question to you is, do you agree that the conditions were life threatening in terms of heat, but you think something else happened to them before the heat took its toll, or do you not believe the conditions were life threatening with regard to heat? Thanks.

RSBM

Do you think someone struck with heatstroke would keel over as if having a heart attack? Or die on their feet like a statue? Or keep crawling until their last breath?

Do you think someone experiencing heat stroke knows they are dying?

If you were climbing multiple flights of stairs and began to feel dizzy, would you never sit down?

Not trying to be snarky, these are serious questions that relate to how I think someone experiencing heat stroke would think/react, and I'm curious to understand the thinking of others who disagree.

I have a question for you.
Who do you think died first,
JG or EC?

 

[Yvettea]

Throwing things out there that might be related.

• the baby refused to be carried in the new carrier.
  
  
• someone had to return to the house to retrieve the old kangaroo carrier. (the original article by SFC -behind a paywall- said the baby was lying face up still in the kangaroo carrier)

MOO

 

[rahod1]

I do, however, have some theoretical questions to ask that might get people thinking outside the usual box:

1. What if the witness who saw the vehicle heading up the road toward the trails -- was mistaken? What if it wasn't actually them or their vehicle?

2. What if it WAS them in their vehicle, but they went somewhere else first that morning, and only came back down to the HC/SL area later? Later on Sunday or even not until Monday sometime?

3. What if -- as I speculated once earlier -- they didn't set out all as a family but one adult (presumably Jon, either alone or with dog) set out initially, and then the others (presumably Ellen and baby) arrived later?

All three of these seem unlikely but maybe they will trigger some ideas.

MOO

on #1) They probably confirmed with witness verifying occupants in car and truck type match.
#2) Possible, but wouldn't change basic scenario of taking the hike itself..only timing.
#3) That would entail EC carrying baby alone for a period of time trying to catch up with JG and dog. That scenario appears to ADD risk to the situation. Even if this should be the case, I don't think it would materially change the outcome. MOO

 

[Auntie Cipation]

I have a question for you.
Who do you think died first,
JG or EC?

If I might be so bold, I will change your question to "who became immobilized first" because I really have no idea of the extent of the biological processes, and I think the relevant question is who lost the ability to react first.

The scenario we have suggests to me that JC became ill or unresponsive first. Mainly because I can't picture him remaining seated 100 feet from EC as she collapsed, if he was able to move.

Of course considering they were in a stretch of switchbacks, we don't even know whether JC and EC could see each other from their respective locations, or whether a hairpin turn blocked their view of each other.

Still, the image that EC was attempting to get help creates the impression that he went down first.

Do you see it a different way? I will keep trying to envision it too.

 

[Rocky Mountain Hi]

on #1) They probably confirmed with witness verifying occupants in car and truck type match.
#2) Possible, but wouldn't change basic scenario of taking the hike itself..only timing.
#3) That would entail EC carrying baby alone for a period of time trying to catch up with JG and dog. That scenario appears to ADD risk to the situation. Even if this should be the case, I don't think it would materially change the outcome. MOO

Also, if it happened that way, it might imply they knew the trail already, enough so, that EC would be confident of finding her way and catching up to JG. I find it hard to believe that they knew the trail, and that they'd knowingly take a dog and a baby out on a steep trail with bad water at the bottom, during a period of peak summer heat. But anything's possible, I guess. We'll never know what they were thinking. Heck, we'll be lucky if we'll ever find out a solid COD.

 

[rahod1]

If I might be so bold, I will change your question to "who became immobilized first" because I really have no idea of the extent of the biological processes, and I think the relevant question is who lost the ability to react first.

The scenario we have suggests to me that JC became ill or unresponsive first. Mainly because I can't picture him remaining seated 100 feet from EC as she collapsed, if he was able to move.

Of course considering they were in a stretch of switchbacks, we don't even know whether JC and EC could see each other from their respective locations, or whether a hairpin turn blocked their view of each other.

Still, the image that EC was attempting to get help creates the impression that he went down first.

Do you see it a different way? I will keep trying to envision it too.

Agree. I was just thinking the same thing on that question.

 

[Quiet Time]

You're all asking what could they be spraying......
The first thing that came to my mind, and this is kinda out there,

but what about the planes spraying some kind of fire retardant out of the planes on to the fires? Could that stuff be looming in the air? So many fires all around the area.

But, then, there'd be dead birds possibly........or some sort of animal species.
IDK...

 

[PerplexedPatty]

Throwing things out there that might be related.

• the baby refused to be carried in the new carrier.
  
  
• someone had to return to the house to retrieve the old kangaroo carrier. (the original article by SFC -behind a paywall- said the baby was lying face up still in the kangaroo carrier)

MOO

Was the carrier new?

Also, did the witness that reported seeing the family at 7:45 have a camera that verified the precise time?

 

[Parsnip]

Tagging

@RedHaus , @fred&edna , @Pumphouse363 , @Babs24 , @ItalyReader because you all seemed interested in knocking around a third-party scenario.

Fair warning: this is not my comfort zone. I’m pretty convinced at this point with a cascade scenario similar to the one I proposed in thread 1. I’m also very much out of my element wrt maps and most things chemical, which will come up in the following hypothetical scenario. My own bailiwick is more human behavior and language.

However, I am moved by the persistence of some posters on this thread that the G-C family would absolutely not deliberately or mistakenly put themselves or their child and dog in danger. Here, I assume they would not. I also assume no intentional attack on them. This is a hypothetical scenario that assumes both of those suppositions are true.

JG’s and EC’s child is growing. It’s been hot in CA, and they have noticed the baby getting hot and uncomfortable in the carrier they’ve been using. So they research and order a new pack. Its benefits are a sun shade and less body heat contact between the baby and the wearer. It arrives on Saturday. JG fits it to himself, finds it comfortable, does some research, and talks with EC about a hike for early next morning to try it out.

Sunday morning, they consult the weather forecast. All looks good for a test run of the pack in the early hours. They prepare and pack up. Their chosen destination is Hite’s Cove, a trail they know. But upon arrival, they change course and decide to try out the switchbacks on Savage-Lundy. It would be a better test of the pack on the steep terrain of the switchbacks (map people: is it true that the switchbacks are steeper than HC?). They’ll head back up after an hour or so with plenty of time to get back to the car before it gets hot.

A mile or so into the switchbacks, the dog starts protesting ( maybe vomiting? Refusing to walk? Idk.) JG has had the dog on a leash and the baby on his back. He takes the baby off, noticing the baby is not looking good, either. Could it be the heat? EC thinks it might be. She has the water and starts squeezing it out of the bladder on the baby and dog. She notices JG has sat down and she’s feeling sick herself. This can’t be heat! She has to get out of there…she’s the only one still functioning. She starts to head back to the car/help, but succumbs several yards away. It’s about 9:30/10:00am.

Really spitballing about what happened next/before they arrived. Hang in there with me while I spit ball.

1. Hours before the family arrived for their short hike, ?? came to spray some toxin in the area to kill vegetation to make room for a grow. It wouldn’t be on the switchbacks but some higher elevation. The spray would have to have settled onto the switchbacks. The area is known not to be used, except in early spring for wild flower viewing, so a late summer plant for a fall harvest might work…idk.

2. ?? Returns early Monday (or any time after the area becomes safe after the spray) for a second application or just to check on things but notices a car there. Following prints, ?? discovers the family on the trail. Panicked, ?? not only does not report their deaths but obscures evidence. ?? knows better than to disturb the family at the scene but does obscure footprints leading down S-L. (Again in need of map people here: would ?? have had to access keys and move the car in order to suggest the trail the family took was HC…would there be any point in doing that?)

?? hopes enough time will pass that the toxin in the spray will be obscured in any toxicology tests due exposure/decomposition. Mariposa County is responsible for managing/reporting public health hazards, and this scene is surely going to get some attention…

All MOO and speculation.

Alright, my WS friends. Chime in.

Just a thank you to all who are weighing in on this scenario. I wouldn’t ordinarily quote myself, but I feel an anchor is warranted here, just so we don’t derail!

 

[Yvettea]

Was the carrier new?

Also, did the witness that reported seeing the family at 7:45 have a camera that verified the precise time?

Supposedly there was a picture of a backpack carrier briefly posted that morning on social media, Instagram I believe. But the sheriff said the baby was in a kangaroo carrier when found.

 

[PerplexedPatty]

Personally, I think postmortem tox’ analysis is for the sole purpose of ruling in/out a specific drug. Moo



Typical drugs and substances that may undergo toxicology screening for a forensic toxicology report include:

• volatiles (e.g., chloroform, ethanol [alcohol], acetone, isopropanol, methanol and toluene)
• illicit drugs (e.g., heroin, cocaine, marijuana, PCP, methamphetamine)
• prescription drugs (e.g., benzodiazepines, opiates, amphetamines, barbiturates)
• over-the-counter substances (e.g., ibuprofen, acetaminophen)
• drug metabolites (break-down products of drugs)

Toxicology Drug Testing

Sent from my iPad