Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
How do we know that there was no damage to the bodies from animals? I never read that and it's something that is not normally released to the press.
Several posts earlier said that LEO said the bodies were intact. The man was still in a sitting upright position when found, with the dog and baby next to him. That part is in many articles.
A body would need to start to decompose, start omitting odors, start to rot to attract scavengers. Just briefly reading through this report, flies need to lay their eggs that turn in to maggots that then start breaking down the flesh. Many of the scavengers feed off of the bugs / maggots that are on the body.
All of this can take time or days for the bodies to decompose enough to attract animals large enough to eat the flesh. Even then the animal must find the carcuss. Apparently these bodies had not even had time to have maggots start breaking down the flesh.
The bodies just needed a little more time to break down to omit odors and the animals to find them.
Animal scavengers as agents of decomposition: the postmortem succession of Louisiana wildlife
2 full days in temps over 100 isn't enough for an animal to smell it? When I see vultures and buzzards, they don't even wait for the animal to be completely dead. They see them from the air, they don't smell them. They stand in the road eating roadkill that hasn't been there long enough to smell. Smell would be for coyotes I guess, but it still seems 2 days in those temps would be enough.
If anyone wants more information about toxic algae, pull up the Peninsula Daily News around Mother's Day 2019. Anderson Lake in Jefferson County, state of Washington, is known for toxic algae. On Mother's Day 2019, a family's dog splashed in the lake & rapidly became sick.& died. One family member became sick, just from holding the dog, but recovered.
I had never heard of toxic algae until the above incident. I had been to this lake, it looked normal to me, but signs were posted around the lake warning about the algae.
It's because of this that I think the algae needs to be factored in, along with heat & dehydration, & possibly poor air quality.
Interesting - Lake Anderson was found to have 9.5 micrograms per liter of anatoxin from the algae and the recreational limit is 1 microgram. That is significant.
I still don't think algae killed the humans (though no human has ever died from toxic algae and environmental 'hazards' have been ruled out). Perhaps the dog got sick and was dying and they used most of their water to try to save him.
But I think the baby was the most vulnerable and exhibited the first signs of distress due to heat. I think that is where the water was going - to try to cool her off. Dad went next, then Mom. The dog is a wild card. I am not sure who would have lived longer.
I realize there was "a little" water left, whatever that means. If they only brought one camelbak (1.5 - 3 liters), it was a suicide mission (I don't meant that literally).
Friends say they were avid hikers, but I never read anywhere that said they had hiked this particular trail. Since he researched it on his phone, I would think not. Unless he was just checking the weather or something.
It's been said though they recently bought a house at the foot of the trail, so would they do that not even having hiked the area, or would they only do that because they already knew they loved hiking the area? IDK.
It's been said though they recently bought a house at the foot of the trail, so would they do that not even having hiked the area, or would they only do that because they already knew they loved hiking the area? IDK.
It is irrelevant. Even if they had hiked it 100 times, that doesn't mean they did so in the heat of summer, and even if they had, they still may have underestimated the conditions. If baby got overheated, they would have depleted most of their water for baby, trying to save just enough to get them back to the car.
It is irrelevant. Even if they had hiked it 100 times, that doesn't mean they did so in the heat of summer, and even if they had, they still may have underestimated the conditions. If baby got overheated, they would have depleted most of their water for baby, trying to save just enough to get them back to the car.
Those aren't the questions you asked in the other thread. You only asked why people assumed they hiked the trail before.
Again though, dehydration and heat stroke would have shown up on autopsy as it produces chemical changes that are easily tested for. Investigators have also said they think dehydration is unlikely due to the dog's death and the fact that they had a little water left (source posted yesterday on the thread I believe).
Those aren't the questions you asked in the other thread. You only asked why people assumed they hiked the trail before.
Again though, dehydration and heat stroke would have shown up on autopsy as it produces chemical changes that are easily tested for. Investigators have also said they think dehydration is unlikely due to the dog's death and the fact that they had a little water left (source posted yesterday on the thread I believe).
Are you sure heat stroke could be concluded from an autopsy 72 hours later?
I have no idea what that areas weather is like, but remember, that it matters.
Anything that dies here, does not decompose or have maggots.... they dehydrate. Literally, an empty fur shell.
__________________ ____________________________________________
My posts as a Mod will always be in red.
Be sure to review Terms of Service: TOS
And check this out: FAQ
Moderator: Relationships Forum / Hawaii Forum / Dogs / Pets / Current Events
Friends say they were avid hikers, but I never read anywhere that said they had hiked this particular trail. Since he researched it on his phone, I would think not. Unless he was just checking the weather or something.
I came across mention in an article early on, of their having hiked it before, but without the child and dog. No mention of the season in which they did that. I don't think I could dig that up from among the plethora of articles out about them now. It's possibly they hiked it before the moved to the area, which could mean--before a fire burned the tree cover (and source of shade). Perhaps they chose that location for a house, because they'd hiked the nearby trails before.
But your point that he researched the trail the day before is a good one. Either the forgoing isn't true, or maybe he researched it to see if there were any new conditions to be aware of, any warnings (like the algae blooms), and the like.
Last edited by Ruth4Truth; 08-27-2021 at 09:52 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
