Man left his girlfriend to freeze to death

There is no evidence that he turned his phone off. He did, however, put it on silent after calling the Alpine Police at 00:35. This call was not recorded. Thomas insists that he requested a rescue for Kirsten. The officer who took the call said it was definitely not an emergency call. One of them is wrong. Either Thomas did not request help, or the police officer did not understand Thomas' request for help. Without any recording, it is impossible to say who was right.

The evidence is that she was not hypothermic when the helicopter was there. Neither of Thomas nor Kerstin looked at the helicopter and they were both moving towards the summit. It is, however, true that video from the helicopter appears to show that Kerstin's progress was painfully slow.

You’re right. He didn’t wave it away. He ignored it, the articles saying that are using it as a turn of phrase for rejecting help. The helicopter circled them six times at 10:40pm and the climbers ignored it. They’d been climbing for nine hours by then and I think hadn’t moved much towards the last part of that. He claims she was absolutely fine until about a hour after the helicopter left. He didn’t call anyone. He turned his phone off and says he left her at 2am and called emergency services at 3:30am.

What does waving away a helicopter look like

”The prosecution cited a message from Kerstin G to Thomas P 12 weeks before her death, saying the climb would be a challenge for her: “‘I completely lack experience when it comes to winter tours.”.

The judge also confirmed she was “light years away” from him in terms of experience. He’d climbed the mountain plenty of times. She never. So the parents weren’t correct. Not sure what social posts you mean. It’s a mountain she hadn’t climbed before and she was used to different conditions.

As far as him not being a paid guide so not responsible and both parties being responsible for themselves …when she was hypothermic and might have been seeing fairies at that point he waved away a helicopter sent to help her. All the while he was fit, well and competent enough to finish the climb. So he either did it deliberately, which the judge did not believe, or he was dangerously, fatally incompetent to divert an ambulance from a climber in need and not put a readily available cover on that vulnerable person. The opportunities for him to prevent death were there. He apparently had a combined lack of common sense, arrogant disregard of climbing rules and a reckless and cavalier attitude to others’ safety and wellbeing.

Perhaps the climbers who pushed for his prosecution just want to discourage people like that from going out in pairs again.

I don't think anyone is forgetting that on here. However, despite some reports saying that her testimony swung the case, the judge actually decided not to consider her testimony.

Note that I am not a mountaineer. I am attempting to represent the views of mountaineers on this thread, but actual mountaineers may be able to put it better than me.

The central question is around responsibility. You have a group of two or more mountaineers undertaking a climb in the Alps, none of them being paid for the climb and none of them having trained as an alpine guide nor, indeed, being equipped to act as one. They believe they are each responsible for their own safety as set out in the Mountain Ethic Declaration. Is it right that, if an accident happens, the courts should decide which of them is more experienced and hold them to the same standard as a professional guide? The trial judge decided the answer was yes, and found Thomas P guilty on that basis. However, many mountaineers, some of whom think Thomas P acted incorrectly, think the answer should be no - they knew what they were getting into, they were responsible for their own safety, and it is wrong to hold an untrained amateur to the same standard as a trained professional.

We are forgetting that he had previous form for abandonment, and that woman was lucky to survive.

No, they weren't there. Nor was anyone else.

We know she was ill. We don't know if Thomas P was aware of this.

You describe her as an inexperienced climber. Her parents strongly disagree with that characterisation. They say she was as experienced as Thomas P, a view that is supported by her social media posts.

No, I am not arguing for any exemption from criminal investigation. If there is a paid guide, they are clearly responsible for the group's safety. If they are negligent and someone dies, they can be held criminally responsible. However, if there is no paid guide the general principle is that all members of the group are equally responsible for safety, and each member of the group is responsible for their own safety. It is up to them to know if they are well enough and fit enough to undertake the climb. It is up to them to know if the climb is within their capabilities. It is up to them to flag the point where they need to turn back if the climb proves to be beyond them. I would not expect the law to impose some other standard, finding some basis on which to pick one member of the group and deciding that they should hold the same level of responsibility as a paid guide. There will be circumstances where it is right for criminal law to apply but, unless we want to kill mountaineering as a group activity, they will be rare.

The grieving parents weren’t there! Their ‘belief’ she was in control of the situation is contradicted by fact. She was ill and an inexperienced climber in comparison to the man who waved away a rescue helicopter and left her with no cover.

As you says, plenty of climbers - mostly men over 50 - die in the Austrian mountains every year. This prosecution arose from the extraordinary circumstances. Climbers called the emergency services, mountain police who deal with those 300 cases a year, booked Plamberger, it was an experienced climber who found him guilty.

It seems like you’re almost suggesting that any death that occurs as a result of extreme mountain conditions should be exempt from criminal investigation.

They can care about the woman who died as well as caring about their hobby. The two are not mutually exclusive.

I'm sure her parents cared about her, but they gave evidence for the defendant. They did not believe he had done anything wrong and they objected strongly to the depiction of their daughter by the prosecution.

It’s a male dominated field so the number of concerned males will be much higher than females. A woman has died (and not the first one) and all they care about is themselves and their hobby. Cunts.

Climbers come in both sexes. Female climbers appear to be as concerned about this verdict as male ones. But don't let the facts get in the way.

Selfish males

The judge accepted that he did not leave her to pursue climbing to the top. He left her to get help and went via the summit because that was the quickest way. Going down the way they had come would have taken much longer.

Exactly 💯 right. Time to move on and make safety and safeguarding a priority.

Can't there be sensible distinctions,
For example leaving a kid on a mountain alone- illegal
Leaving an injured person to pursue climbing to the top- illegal
It's not rocket science that you prioritise safety when there's a danger to life which wasn't part of the general danger of the hike. .

I doubt that mountaineers would agree with you. That approach has the potential to destroy their hobby completely.

There's certainly costs to climb Fuji, which are set to rise and the numbers are already restricted. Very sensible.

Your update @prh47bridge convinces me even more that prosecution should be extended to non guided groups and that the fees should be raised.

Since this thread has been revived, a quick update. The prosecution are appealing against the sentence. Thomas Plamberger is appealing against the conviction.

Plamberger has a lot of support from other climbers who are worried that his conviction, if allowed to stand, will have a chilling effect on their sport. There are nearly 300 fatalities a year in the Austrian mountains, but charges of negligent homicide are rare and convictions involve guided trips, not informal climbing partnerships. This verdict means that any climber faces being held responsible for the entire group and may be liable if there is an accident and they are held to be more qualified, whereas the general approach in the past has been that you are responsible for your own safety. It could also put up the cost of mountaineering in Austria.

Yes read that article and thought the same, especially the going back bit if someone isn't feeling good. It could have had a worse outcome. Thankfully the wee lad was okay. I hope his mum gave his dad a right earful. How totally irresponsible.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c93403wg288o

Did anyone else see this article? It made me think of this thread. It's just so bizarre. I don't know what the guy was thinking taking a 7 year old on such a big expedition anyway but to then just leave him!

Just coming on to say thanks to all those who recommended 'Killing Me Softly' on this thread. I got it from the library a while ago but didn't have time to read it and have just started it today and am already half way through. Absolutely gripping and incredibly disturbing.

Apparently the people in the Everest thing were lower level trekkers not guides and poisoning wasn't prevalent.
There is such a thing as aspirational pneumonia though- which is pneumonia developing from food poisoning..
So as they didn't have a guide there would only be the food in the huts. But the over involvement around the Everest area, of helicopters, was extensive apparently with many aware they didn't need rides.
An insurance scam that went wrong? She fell and he carried on in shock?
Actually just googled and can't find a mention of whether he or she had insurance.
Also the evidence of his previous girlfriend was that he just walked off and left her and it doesn't mention an ambulance rescue. Which supports the DV theory.
OK it is tenuous
Anyway it's going to appeal. But not I assume for the above reasons

It does seem quite different – she wasn't poisoned just ill, and he wasn't a paid guide but her boyfriend, and they could have been rescued but not by him. I'm not seeing the similarities?

Well firstly they weren't all forced seems some were willing and secondly apparently one of the alleged methods of forcing was guides poisoning people. Did you read the article?