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.