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

[d4i5y]

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...

This is another excellent post for a few reasons. First, I agree with your analysis on why the father was sitting, secondly, because it helps clear up this ‘dog was attached’ to the dad and illustrates the importance of sources. I’ll just go through a few things in order.

1. “KANGAROO BAG”. I believe this is false. The only source I’ve seen for this is from this article: Family is found dead on a trail without signs of violence. This looks like a news aggregator. So they’ve gone through the articles and amalgamated them. I think whoever wrote this saw this photo on the more reliable sources like WP and SF Chronicle and just made the assumption it was the same carrier (attached; apologies to the moderators as I cannot get a link to these articles but it is used on both as the headline photo). As Tower points out, though, this is just unlikely because a) the baby was much bigger, and b) carrying something like this on a hike of this kind would be very uncomfortable for both dad and baby. So, for me anyway, I am not outright discounting this, just putting it as from a low-value source.

2. “DOG ATTACHED”. I believe I’m the person you mention in relation to seeing this dog as especially bonded to Ellen. Of course all dogs are different but this was merely speculation on my part as at that point, I’d bought that the dog was tethered to Jonathan and so was extrapolating from there. HOWEVER, you are spot on in relation to sources.

The ONLY source I can find for “... attached” is the Mirror and Daily Star. That computes because both would be in a syndicate with an agreement to lift stories from each other. It looks as though whoever wrote this was sourcing from the bigger, more reliable outlets like the WP, SF Chronicle, and the Times. We can deduce this by comparing their reporting:

The Mirror: “... Mr Briese said the baby was in a backpack carrier with the dog near her father but attached to him...”. Note they don’t quote this. They’ve just rewritten it but in a way that is frustratingly badly phrased and misleading.

The Times: “... Briese said, Miju was 'in a backpack carrier near the dad, but not on the dad,'...”. You’ll note there that he is actually quoted. And I got this quote from the Daily Mail as the Times is behind a paywall (it is cited in the article, however).

So, clearly the Daily Mail is in a syndicate with the Times, SF Chronicle, etc. with lifting rights. This makes perfect sense as the Daily Mail can probably afford to pay syndicate rights. The Mirror and Daily Star etc. are essentially ‘cheaper’ tabloids so they can report news but they won’t have the same lifting rights. Hence, they have rewritten the story and included this badly phrased and misleading statement.

So, in conclusion, I am going to conclude (this is me personally of course) that there is no reliable source that the dog was tethered to Jonathan. This then immediately raises the prospect that the dog was already weakened and was being kept, along with little Miju, with the dad while mum went to get help. This is speculating and I still do think it’s possible the dog could have run off after Ellen but I think that’s less likely looking at all the available facts in the round.

Finally, therefore, I think you are spot on and hopefully this is something the investigation is considering. A number of people have been very interested in why the father was sitting upright and this provides the most likely explanation: he was positioned in such a way that the baby (and possibly the dog) were sheltered in what shade he could provide. That positioning then obviously gives us a likely very close time of day when he certainly was first fully incapacitated which is then further helpful for time of death and other important forensic information. So yeah, brilliant analysis. Apologies for snipping your post but I figured my reply was going to be long enough as it is.

 

[Officer Dibble]

I have been wondering about the water source from the home as well. Was it bottled water? From the tap? What is the water source in a home that far out from towns and cities? Just curious as I grew up on a small farm and our water source was a well. There were times we couldn't use the well water and had to buy water due to a variety of factors including dry conditions.

Excellent point! Thanks for sharing. I agree with your thoughts. JMO MOO

 

[oceanstarryeyes]

As someone said earlier, this makes the most sense to me (I can’t find his post)

“if something like heat stroke happened to the baby during the hike, both parents might have been RUNNING in PANIC to get baby back to the car” until Jonathan may have experienced heat stroke from running and had to sit down, laying the backpack with baby beside him. Ellen would have been running faster because she wasn’t carrying the baby so she was found ahead of Jonathan on the trail.

That could also account for why only one water container was found. Ellen might have had her own personal water she was carrying and emptied it trying to cool the baby, then throwing the empty container down in panic somewhere on the trail.

 

[jonjon747]

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.

There's a little problem with that theory though.
If the father got really sick first, wouldn't the mother take the baby and at least try to get some help?
That's the mother instinct, if he lost consciousness, she'd take the baby and try to get back to their car asap.
But it appears, she didn't get out much far "alone".

 

[Smokingun]

Briese said one rescuer was treated for a health issue related to the heat but was OK. Briese said around 3:15 p.m.

From: The Fresno Bee Aug 20, 2021

A rescuer helping to recover the bodies suffered from heat related issues.

I’ve included a picture from the paper to show the current landscape,

Read more here: https://www.fresnobee.com/news/local/article253577919.html#storylink=cpy

 

[jonjon747]

As someone said earlier, this makes the most sense to me (I can’t find his post)

“if something like heat stroke happened to the baby during the hike, both parents might have been RUNNING in PANIC to get baby back to the car” until Jonathan may have experienced heat stroke from running and had to sit down, laying the backpack with baby beside him. Ellen would have been running faster because she wasn’t carrying the baby so she was found ahead of Jonathan on the trail.

That could also account for why only one water container was found. Ellen might have had her own personal water she was carrying and emptied it trying to cool the baby, then throwing the empty container down in panic somewhere on the trail.

Well, that's plausible.
I'm just not sure there was a report of S&R team finding another hiking bladder in that area.

 

[annpats]

There's a little problem with that theory though.
If the father got really sick first, wouldn't the mother take the baby and at least try to get some help?
That's the mother instinct, if he lost consciousness, she'd take the baby and try to get back to their car asap.
But it appears, she didn't get out much far "alone".

But as heat stroke strikes, rational thought processes goes out of the window. The brain is shutting down.

Don't forget Ellen also had health problems, so may have not been able to carry the baby in normal circumstances, let alone in the heat and uphill and in distress.

In fact, the weekend before weren't they seen at a museum and it was noted it was the Dad who was carrying the baby then too.

 

[d4i5y]

There's a little problem with that theory though.
If the father got really sick first, wouldn't the mother take the baby and at least try to get some help?
That's the mother instinct, if he lost consciousness, she'd take the baby and try to get back to their car asap.
But it appears, she didn't get out much far "alone".

This assumes the mum was going for the car, though. I’d be very interested in where exactly the police eventually found cell phone coverage when they first reported the deaths as I think it’s likely (but not conclusive) that she may have been trying to get to the top or actually did get to the top of the ridge to call in help. If the dad and dog had already succumbed, sure she would take the baby and go for it; but if all were alive but very ill, then it would also be instinct to try stay with them and call for help. So she may have been up there for some time trying to call help and then collapsed on her way back to them.

I find this aspect very frustrating to think about. In real terms, both were very experienced hikers, very fit. They seemed to have been out every weekend so would be used to high temperatures and how to prepare for them (the police also confirmed they were well-packed). And ok, it’s a difficult hike but it shouldn’t have taken that long to get back up that slope (they must have been used to topo maps so will have known about the incline).

It’s just very strange. Heat is still the most likely I think but something very serious must have happened. I don’t know if something external, some congenital health issue, some sort of toxin. It just doesn’t make sense otherwise. I can only imagine how awful not knowing yet must be for their families.

 

[Smokingun]

It sounds like they were prepared with more water than the bladder.

This Daily Mail article reports:

Samples from their water bottles have also been sent to toxicology labs, and a necropsy on their family dog has been planned.

 

[Auntie Cipation]

BBM: They had water still so they weren't short. You'll suck your bladder dry and still have plenty of hydration in your body to do a 1.5 mile hike with 1,500 feet of elevation gain. It'll suck but be completely possible.

I don't think dehydration is necessary when considering heat stroke. In fact several folks have mentioned that once it begins, drinking water is not enough to stop it. IMO

I haven't seen 109 degrees anywhere except this post. Did you make a typo?

Temp range of 107-109 has been mentioned many times as the expected peak on that day in that location. IMO

 

[MrsEmmaPeel]

. . . 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. . . .

I think this makes a lot of sense. If Philip Kreycik knew to get under a tree even in the deepest delirium of his slow gait and zigzag walking, I believe John Gerrish (sitting up) stopped in a bit of shade. I hope LE considers this idea of timing their demise.

 

[MissUnderstood]

This may have been asked and I missed it, so apologies in advance. Would signs of heatstroke be found in an autopsy? Or would signs be seen when they were found? Would you try to undress if affected by the heat? Would a dog instinctively find shade and try cool himself? How long would you need to be in the sun for heatstroke to affect three people and a dog in such a short time frame?

 

[Auntie Cipation]

I think this makes a lot of sense. If Philip Kreycik knew to get under a tree even in the deepest delirium of his slow gait and zigzag walking, I believe John Gerrish (sitting up) stopped in a bit of shade. I hope LE considers this idea of timing their demise.

I agree with the rationale, including that LE should use it as a clue to what time theu may have stopped hiking, but unless they were at a spot with a cut slope (upper bank) steep enough to make shade at that time of day (unlikely IMO) I'm afraid there was likely no shade for dad.

I think OP was referring to the dad putting the baby in the shade of his own body, which I do think was likely if that was an option.

MOO

 

[Smokingun]

Good Morning America segment. The Mariposa County Sheriff expresses the elements and aggressive trail, to be a consideration for cause of death.
https://youtu.be/yjXHPrBHoSE

 

[Seattle1]

This may have been asked and I missed it, so apologies in advance. Would signs of heatstroke be found in an autopsy? Or would signs be seen when they were found? Would you try to undress if affected by the heat? Would a dog instinctively find shade and try cool himself? How long would you need to be in the sun for heatstroke to affect three people and a dog in such a short time frame?

The autopsy findings of heat stroke may be minimal and are non-specific, particularly if the survival interval is short. Findings may include cerebral edema, visceral petechial hemorrhages, subendocardial hemorrhages, and hepatocyte necrosis.

https://www.aaimedicine.org/journal-of-insurance-medicine/jim/2002/034-02-0114.pdf

 

[Deleted member 292879]

I know heatstroke can happen to anyone, but thinking of Kreycik and the fact that he was running quite fast before he got into trouble, I have to think there were other factors at play here, for a couple so young.

-Due to their travel history and experience, they were ambitious, and did want to complete the full loop. Perhaps they saw the Merced as a potential water source or backup source, and given their relative newness to the area, did not know or weren’t thinking about algae. I think they began their hike in the morning, perhaps 8AM. I don’t buy the LE/MSM afternoon theory and don’t know how this was arrived at, but of course they know much more than we do. By the time they were coming up Savage-Lundy, the temperature would have risen by around 10 degrees, maybe more. It took them longer than expected to do the loop due to, say, tending to the baby, eating, drinking, and the steep incline. Without cell service, they may have even gotten lost.
-Perhaps recreational drug use or alcohol the night before or even drug use that morning (not passing judgment here at all).
-Sleep deprivation that comes from being parents to a one-year-old. Baby sleep can be erratic well beyond the one-year mark. This could have affected their overall fitness level and/or tolerance of the conditions that day. That combined with Jonathan’s age and Ellen’s prior health issues.

One random question I have is whether both parents were equally excited to do this hike, or whether one had to convince the other. I think it’s incredibly ambitious and really quite reckless to hike more than 3 miles with a 1yo, I don’t care how experienced you are. They get hot and uncomfortable and they need to nap…So…did they get lost?

MOO and sorry for the rambling.

 

[Megnut]

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.

Brilliant. Credible.

I might add that if the dog got sick because of algae, once he was set down, the dog likely had no energy to move, if not already deceased.

Shade for the baby... makes great sense.

I wonder where the sun was for their second leg... if beating from behind them, the baby might be protected some, in a front carrier (kangaroo front pack).... my guess, dog in distress, dad carried him... and mom took the baby.

As for the water, anybody know if mom was still nursing? Dad may have had less water to ensure mom had enough, especially if nursing... possibly they tried to use water to cool themselves.

Dad racing with a sick dog, mom hurrying with baby. Getting hotter, more oppressive... dad is weakest, sits... mom leaves baby so she can sprint..... but she doesn't make it far....

JMO building on other's thoughts

 

[Countem]

One random question I have is whether both parents were equally excited to do this hike, or whether one had to convince the other. I think it’s incredibly ambitious and really quite reckless to hike more than 3 miles with a 1yo, I don’t care how experienced you are. They get hot and uncomfortable and they need to nap…So…did they get lost?

Unfortunately, we will likely never know the answer to your first question, but, as far as getting lost, if they had, they had found their way back because “the team found the family in the middle of the trail.”

'Not one clue': The mystery is only deepening around the family found dead on a Sierra trail

 

[jonjon747]

This assumes the mum was going for the car, though. I’d be very interested in where exactly the police eventually found cell phone coverage when they first reported the deaths as I think it’s likely (but not conclusive) that she may have been trying to get to the top or actually did get to the top of the ridge to call in help. If the dad and dog had already succumbed, sure she would take the baby and go for it; but if all were alive but very ill, then it would also be instinct to try stay with them and call for help. So she may have been up there for some time trying to call help and then collapsed on her way back to them.

I find this aspect very frustrating to think about. In real terms, both were very experienced hikers, very fit. They seemed to have been out every weekend so would be used to high temperatures and how to prepare for them (the police also confirmed they were well-packed). And ok, it’s a difficult hike but it shouldn’t have taken that long to get back up that slope (they must have been used to topo maps so will have known about the incline).

It’s just very strange. Heat is still the most likely I think but something very serious must have happened. I don’t know if something external, some congenital health issue, some sort of toxin. It just doesn’t make sense otherwise. I can only imagine how awful not knowing yet must be for their families.

I don't think they died of heat stroke or poisoned water or CO2 from mines.
Autopsy showed absolutely nothing, not a single hint of anything.
Until the toxicology result is out,
I'm going with death caused by unknown supernatural force or something like possessed by an evil spirit.
Besides, the place is called Devil's Gulch.
It's difficult to take all 4 lives at the same time at the same spot.
Dog would've wandered around, and one of the three human beings would've shown something in autopsy.

 

[happyday]

I don't think they died of heat stroke or poisoned water or CO2 from mines.
Autopsy showed absolutely nothing, not a single hint of anything.
Until the toxicology result is out,
I'm going with death caused by unknown supernatural force or something like possessed by an evil spirit.
Besides, the place is called Devil's Gulch.
It's difficult to take all 4 lives at the same time at the same spot.
Dog would've wandered around, and one of the three human beings would've shown something in autopsy.

OK.

But we don’t know that the autopsies showed no hint of anything. We know it wasn’t conclusive, but signs of heatstroke can be minimal. I think they’ll wait for tox results to piece it together no matter what.