09:12 on 2012/09/23 Reply  

• Charles 10:25 on 2012/09/23 Permalink

  Radio-Canada says 15 meters which sounds more likely.

• Kate 11:02 on 2012/09/23 Permalink

  I’m having trouble getting Radio-Canada pages this morning. 15 meters does sound more likely. (I was also mildly amused that the CBC went metric while the Journal stayed Imperial.)

• walkerp 11:09 on 2012/09/23 Permalink

  Yeah, it would be pretty hard to fall more than 20 metres from the Belvedere, unless you took a real bounce and kept rolling.

• Blork 12:14 on 2012/09/23 Permalink

  15 metres is roughly 45 feet. I hear that kind of mixup a lot with CBC reporters fairly often (where they take the distance someone tells them in feet and then report it in metres). I can’t imagine where the “300 feet” thing came from, but there’s no way he fell that far.

• Kate 12:39 on 2012/09/23 Permalink

  Mount Royal is 764 feet high, according to Wikipedia – 233 meters. I don’t think there’s anything like a straight fall of 300 feet anywhere on it.

• steph 15:49 on 2012/09/23 Permalink

  Maybe he fell forward, and it’s a horizontal distance they calculated? or down the slope, as he kept tumbling..

• mare 21:14 on 2012/09/23 Permalink

  You don’t need a free fall to fall 90 metres. There’s definitely possibility to fall that far and bonk your head against trees while you tumble down. Even when your actual fall was only 3 metres or so. I knew a famous rock climber that died that way, slipped on the way down on an easy path and tumbled down the steep face of the hill. Did he fall from one of the boulders that are next to the ‘balcony’ path?

• Kate 23:54 on 2012/09/23 Permalink

  We don’t know any more than is in those brief news articles. I don’t think anybody doubts there are places on Mount Royal where someone could fall far enough, and in such a way, that they could die from the injuries. I only found it odd they’d say 300 feet.

Reply Cancel reply

Required fields are marked *

Name *

Email *

Website