[logician2u]

Scientists sometimes "discover" things that contradict historians, which puts both fields in danger of being found out.

So they didn't find any charred bones, did they?

Perhaps the survivors ate the innards of the deceased, such as the liver, kidneys, stomach, heart, etc. In the 19th century, more so than today, such organ meat was considered a delicacy.

And they wouldn't be desecrating the dead by dismembering them.

[Robert A Cook PE]

Not likely; What I understood was they were thinly slicing muscle tissue (legs, thigh, calves, etc.) off of the bodies of the deceased members, NOT burning and cooking the whole body. So, no burned bones at all.

The bodies had been dead for a while (kept (unburied) in the 12 foot+ snowdrifts, so the meat had to be boiled to become edible. I think the researchers were looking for the wrong info: Besides the stigma of cannibalism is so great that the survivors, no matter how hideous, would NEVER have admitted it unless they actually did it.

Also, even after the first rescue parties made it back across the Sierra Mountains, a few still ate their dead, since final rescue didn't happen until almost April.