Russell Brice's statement about events on Everest

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Magenta 12 Jun 2006
FYI, Russell Brice has posted a statement on his website about the circumstances surrounding David Sharp's death on Everest. In particular, he says the team were descending when he first learned there was another climber in distress.

http://www.himex.com/c_pub/en/news/2006/reflections_on_everest.php
HouseOfHoncho 15 Jun 2006
In reply to Magenta:

Pity that members of his own expedition have said publicly that they radioed Brice while ascending.
Magenta 15 Jun 2006
In reply to HouseOfHoncho:

Two of the Himex climbers—Bob Killip and Max Chaya—have stated that to their knowledge things only started happening on descent.

Some clarification from Mark Inglis and/or the guides as to who did what and when would be helpful.
HouseOfHoncho 15 Jun 2006
In reply to Magenta:

An article in a NZ current affairs magazine provides some information. Extracts are published on my blog at www.houseofhoncho.blogspot.com

There is more than enough info now out that you can reasonably deduce Sharp was seen on the ascent and discussions had on what to do.
Magenta 16 Jun 2006
In reply to HouseOfHoncho:

OK, thanks for that Rob. That's the first comment I've seen about Mark Whetu.

The plot thickens, as they say. Is North and South a reliable magazine? I'm sceptical of a lot of the reporting on this incident as there seems to be at least one mistake in every item. IMO, Mark Inglis has not been consistent in his account and this has added to the confusion (or at least my confusion). Am also wary of the reporting on EverestNews.com and especially MountEverest.net as they frequently cite unnamed sources, and appear to have a bit of attitude toward Russell Brice.

(BTW, what is the title of the article? N&S is available through library databases but the July issue is not up yet.)
HouseOfHoncho 16 Jun 2006
In reply to Magenta:

N&S is as reliable as any other source of media . The title of the article is "Coming Home - The Ongoing Challenge of Being Mark Inglis" and the July issue has just (obviously) been published and on sale in NZ for a few days. I'm wary of relying on this article for 100% accuracy, but those mentioned can answer for themselves if they've been misquoted.

I share your opinion re Inglis and when I get the time and thoughts together I'll explain why - I transcripted his interviews with TVNZ on 22 and 24 May (some of which appear in previous blog entries) and re-reading those words do not leave me totally impressed, especially as he has been complaining of all the misinformation in the media surrounding this when IMO he is responsible for some of it!!!

While it is now clear assistance was provided on the descent in various forms, a clear picture on what happened on the way up is still yet to emerge. Some climbers saw Sharp, some didn't; there are reports some climbers radioed on the ascent, Brice denies this; what, if any, assistance was given on the ascent (my guess is none, and I further speculate that the reason why the full story of the ascent is like extracting teeth is because of this).

The sad thing about all of this is anyone with half a brain knows it is unlikely those on the mountain are so completely deviod of humanity that they would knowingly walk past someone in the throes of death and not lift a finger to help (at least we would like to think so). But because there is such reticence to release information, to put the hand up and say "we stuffed up" or "with the benefit of hindsight, we could have done things differently", it fuels speculation as to what really happened and the motivations behind it.
Magenta 16 Jun 2006
In reply to HouseOfHoncho:

Part of the delay in releasing information may have been due to extending David Sharp's parents the courtesy of a meeting in person before talking to news outlets. But I suppose it can also be construed as a conspiracy of silence.

I think the "40 people went past without helping" comment that started all this and got Ed Hillary involved was inflammatory and unhelpful as everyone involved appears to have been on the defensive ever since.

I don't know if you've listened to this interview with Mark Inglis by a Melbourne Age journalist:
http://tinyurl.com/lb5vt
In contrast to the Close Up interview where Inglis gave the impression that he initiated a call to Brice and was at the centre of things, in the Age interview he says that he was moved on pretty quickly by the guides/Sherpas and basically did nothing.
 MikeTS 16 Jun 2006
In reply to HouseOfHoncho:
Price's problem (unfortunate as it may be) is that he probably had the only outfit with the ability to possibly bring down Sharpe that day. If we accept that (from a moral point of view) you should provide help - but not if you seriously risk other lives at the same time - then his was the biggest moral dilemma on the mountain at the time.
Dean 16 Jun 2006
In reply to MikeTS:

So you don't think he should be banned from guiding now? Or do you?

P.S. It's Brice and Sharp.
 drunken monkey 16 Jun 2006
In reply to Dean: Why should he be banned from Guiding?
Magenta 16 Jun 2006
In reply to HouseOfHoncho:

There is one thing that puzzles me after reading the extract from the North & South article.

As Inglis, Whetu and the others had already continued their ascent past David Sharp and up to the Mushroom Rock before calling Brice, why would they ask for instructions on a course of action they had already taken?
 MikeTS 16 Jun 2006
In reply to Dean:
Well now it's a disputed question of facts. If Brice did know about Sharp on the way up, and caused him to be ignored, then I guess it's yes. If he didn't (as he claims) then no.
But the moral issue dilemma will I'm sure be there again in the future.
chambers 16 Jun 2006
In reply to Magenta:

If it can happen in the street, why not on Everest?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/06/07/nhit07.xml&...
HouseOfHoncho 17 Jun 2006
In reply to Magenta:

Re the "part of the delay ... before talking to news outlets". Well one person forgot to read that script! And despite trying to say a few days after media interviews that he had no more to say on the matter (because of that), his face has subsequently adorned the covers of 2 magazines in NZ.

The "40 people went past without helping" I would suggest was "sensationalism" from someone with a great deal of experience in dealing with media who needs exposure for sponsorship purposes that is possibly his main source of income. I think it would be fair to say this person possibly had not counted on the coverage it would receive and the negative reaction to it.

With respect to your further comment Magenta, and to give people the benefit of the doubt, my pure speculation would be:
a) some people (eg Whetu) saw David Sharp, some (eg Bob Killup) did not
b) when stopping for a drink it got mentioned and discussed
c) they radioed
d) there is evidence that radio communications around this time were not complete - and Brice could well be right in his assertion he knew nothing until the descent. That still doesn't explain some of the comments reported in the media (but I'm trying to keep this post short) - the reaons for that could be anything from media inaccuracy to people lying
e) as they had already gone past and David Sharp wasn't exactly sitting up and saying "hey guys can you give me a hand" SOMEONE made the decision to carry on. Whether that was Brice, or someone on the ascent, who knows.

With respect to Inglis' initial media statements, my guess is he - whether deliberately or unintentionally - combined the two situations (seeing Sharp on the ascent and seeing him again on the descent) into one statement. The statements he was "effectively dead", half frozen, sherpas checked him out etc seem to describe what happened on the descent. But it was said giving the impression it happened on the ascent. I've come to the conclusion (which may be wrong) that nothing was done on the ascent, only on the descent. That would also help to explain why information is less than forthcoming.

Funny thing is (although this is anything but), I think the lack of assistance provided on the ascent is more due to a combination of unfortunate circumstances than any deliberate disregard for someone's human life. But beacuse of the widespread reaction to the initial media coverage, you can perhaps understand why the climbers involved (until Whetu) aren't exactly sticking their hands up and saying "yep, we did nothing on the way up, we didn't think he needed help, and in hindsight that was probably the wrong call".
Magenta 17 Jun 2006
In reply to HouseOfHoncho:
> (In reply to Magenta)

Hi Rob, just a few comments:
>
[...]>
> The "40 people went past without helping" I would suggest was "sensationalism" from someone with a great deal of experience in dealing with media who needs exposure for sponsorship purposes that is possibly his main source of income.

I wondered if the "40 people" comment was defensive hyperbole since it was clearly outside his direct knowledge, and subsequently shown to be incorrect. I was actually a little surprised, given his public speaking and media experience, that he didn't communicate things better. I'm no PR expert, but I thought his two main messages—the triumphant "I made it to the summit" and the compassionate/remorseful "We tried to help but there was nothing we could do"—didn't sit well together.
>
> With respect to your further comment Magenta, and to give people the benefit of the doubt, my pure speculation would be:
[...]

> d) there is evidence that radio communications around this time were not complete - and Brice could well be right in his assertion he knew nothing until the descent.

I wondered about the possibility of miscommunication due to a technical problem. This article refers to a call between guide Mark Woodward and Russell Brice.

"He [Woodward] said he radioed expedition base camp, but did not think expedition manager Russell Grice - also a New Zealander - had received the message. Most of the expedition's radio equipment and the camera used by Whetu to film the climb was knocked out of action by the cold."

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10385552

>[...]
>
> With respect to Inglis' initial media statements, my guess is he - whether deliberately or unintentionally - combined the two situations (seeing Sharp on the ascent and seeing him again on the descent) into one statement.
[...]>

I wondered about that too, whether things that happened on the ascent and descent were conflated. I also wondered why he didn't make use of his website diary to clearly set out what was within his knowledge in the same manner that Brice has now done. (Though I appreciate that he has been hospitalised since his return to NZ.)

> Funny thing is (although this is anything but), I think the lack of assistance provided on the ascent is more due to a combination of unfortunate circumstances than any deliberate disregard for someone's human life.

Yes, I think the situation points to confusion as much as anything. Look at the differing perceptions of climbers on the ascent:
1) David Sharp was a long-dead climber who they expected to see at that location (Bob Killip and some of the Turks)
2) He was bivvying or resting and was encouraged to keep moving (Mark Whetu and two of the Turks)
3) He was close to death and beyond help (Mark Woodward and Mark Inglis—as reported in various media and assuming they are referring to the ascent and not the descent)


>But beacuse of the widespread reaction to the initial media coverage, you can perhaps understand why the climbers involved (until Whetu) aren't exactly sticking their hands up and saying "yep, we did nothing on the way up, we didn't think he needed help, and in hindsight that was probably the wrong call".

In hindsight, and given the probability that mountaineering fatalities will almost certainly be misreported, things could have been handled better.

PS I notice you've covered some of this already on your latest blog entry but for the sake of continuity on this thread I thought I would post what I had already written. I retain my scepticism about MountEverest.net where they rely on unnamed sources, and I also perceive some bias against Russell Brice in their reporting.



New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...