Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Man left his girlfriend to freeze to death

828 replies

Trevordidit · 20/02/2026 02:13

Man left his girlfriend to freeze when she was struggling on a mountain hike.

He's been found guilty of manslaughter.

So many aspects of his account don't make sense - AIBU to wonder if he did it on purpose?

News article

OP posts:
Thread gallery
31
SpaceRaccoon · 21/02/2026 08:24

Imdunfer · 21/02/2026 08:22

Just to make it clear, I agree with the verdict, just not the accusations of planned murder, coercion, control and "angry boyfriend" and her own total lack of responsibility that many posters are fantasising with no facts to back them up.

It's not fantasising. The whole thing is so odd, and his behaviour so callous, that anger and abuse issues actually make logical sense.

Imdunfer · 21/02/2026 08:29

SpaceRaccoon · 21/02/2026 08:24

It's not fantasising. The whole thing is so odd, and his behaviour so callous, that anger and abuse issues actually make logical sense.

Without facts it is all speculation. I call imagining scenarios of deliberate murder and coercion strong enough to make a woman climb a mountain to her death fantasising.

OtterlyAstounding · 21/02/2026 08:33

Imdunfer · 21/02/2026 08:04

The fact that he did it to another girlfriend before and she's alive and well to testify against him in court now is all the more reason why he would think it was OK to do it again.

So you think he deliberately left her in the middle of the night, injured and exhausted, because he was pissed off and impatient with her? Because that's why he left his last girlfriend, apparently.

WhatTheHellsGoingOn · 21/02/2026 08:42

Womaninhouse17 · 20/02/2026 07:42

I've read the article. She was also an experienced climber and was keen to go. He did make mistakes but as an adult, she also had responsibility. I think the outcome is fair - and remember, we don't have all the information just from reading an article.

There’s a lot of stuff that we’ll sadly never know. It said she was an experienced night climber - hence the time of the hike. It would have been a challenge. But we don’t know what sort of state their relationship was in.

He could have threatened or manipulated her into doing it at that time. He could have hidden her correct shoes and told her he’d go with or without her (she may have suspected an affair) or he could have mocked her for not being able to do a mountain she could easily have done, wearing soft shoes etc.

He is to blame but it will tragically take another death or near miss before he’s punished adequately and prevented from harming other women.

diddl · 21/02/2026 08:42

If they chose to to climb a mountain (or similar) wearing what they choose with the level of preparation/ experience they have are they not responsible for their own actions?

To a point which might be why he has got the sentence he has.

He could have said that they would climb another time.

Certainly called for help & not said that things were ok.

They clearly weren't as they were behind time.

In a nutshell-he should have known better.

OtterlyAstounding · 21/02/2026 08:45

Imdunfer · 21/02/2026 08:29

Without facts it is all speculation. I call imagining scenarios of deliberate murder and coercion strong enough to make a woman climb a mountain to her death fantasising.

I don't imagine he intended to murder her when they set out, or that he coerced her into going on the trip, but given the overwhelming number of mistakes that he, an experienced mountain climber, made:

From their poor equipment, to their nonexistent supplies, to the late hour they set off, not taking the weather into account, or how slow they were making progress (being hours behind) because - as it turned out - she was ill, pressing on after she was injured, waving away the helicopter, telling emergency services they were fine, not bundling her up or taking off her split board, not contacting emergency services until a few hours later...

Well, it doesn't paint a very positive picture of a caring, responsible human whose first priority was his partner's safety.

Imdunfer · 21/02/2026 08:46

OtterlyAstounding · 21/02/2026 08:33

So you think he deliberately left her in the middle of the night, injured and exhausted, because he was pissed off and impatient with her? Because that's why he left his last girlfriend, apparently.

Yes I think on the evidence that we know for facts, thst he was in all probability a driven man who wasn't prepared to be thwarted of scaling Austria's highest mountain by a "weak woman".

He left the last one, she was fine. Why wouldn't he think he could just do the same again?

He's guilty of manslaughter by negligence. His penalty appears to be pretty low but it might not be by Austrian standards, or that might be because the sentencing judge was a climber or because the judge considered her culpable at least partly for her own death. I haven't seen the judgement, I don't know what he said except that he believed that the man didn't intend his girlfriend to die.

I'm very swayed by her mother's attitude. If we're speculating then I'd hazard a guess that she knows she brought up a girl who was a risk taker all her life and lived her own life expecting that risk to end badly one day.

Delatron · 21/02/2026 08:46

OtterlyAstounding · 20/02/2026 21:29

ETA: This was meant to be a reply to a PP about how pointless him descending to the hut was, in terms of getting help.

What help could he get there? There were unlikely to be people. There would've been no help. He could have got help by calling on his phone while staying with her, which did still have battery at the point they urgently needed help. They had been stopped climbing for hours by 12.30 am, when he called the emergency services to say they were fine – all he had to do was say they needed help then, which they clearly did.

And if he was well enough to hike over the summit and over an hour down the mountain, then when she was unable to go on he would've been well enough to get them both into a sheltered position, wrap them both in the emergency blankets with her in the bivy sack, and call for help.

From what I've read about how she was found, hanging by a rope feet down off a rock face with her crampons having loosened, I wouldn't be surprised if she was struggling and injured and being 'encouraged' to press on by him as the only option left to them, because he wanted to summit and not be rescued, and so, in her unsuitable footwear, injured and exhausted, she ended up falling.

If that happened, I can imagine in that weather, as tired as he was, he couldn't pull her back up, panicked, tried to tell the authorities everything was fine at half midnight, and then in the end just left her to die. He probably hoped they'd assume she fell while hypothermic and confused after he left her there to 'get help'. It would also explain why she wasn't in her emergency blanket or bivy sack.

That seems most likely to me, anyway.

Edited

This actually seems quite likely.

As it is the only explanation that explains the lack of blanket/shelter etc.

It also explains why he left her. He couldn’t get her back up to safety after she fell. Though he could have explained that. She fell and I couldn’t help her is a little more understandable than just leaving her without getting her to shelter and wrapped in a blanket.

I think his ego took over, he pushed and pushed her. She was exhausted, ill and injured and fell and got stuck. He couldn’t help at this point and knew he’d refused emergency help. He didn’t answer his phone as he was getting his story straight.

This would also explain her earlier call to the emergency services that went wrong. She knew she was in trouble. But he wouldn’t descend with her. I imagine his logic was that it was easier by that point to push on to the summit and go down the easier side.

Her choice - descend all alone down the tricky side or stick with him and push on. I don’t think she had much choice. Then she unfortunately fell.

Honesty would have been the best policy here if this was the case.

So his crime - pushing her when she wasn’t up to it and was struggling. Refusing help and not getting prompt help when she fell. So yes pretty bad.

Delatron · 21/02/2026 08:49

I think how she was found is pretty crucial here.

OtterlyAstounding · 21/02/2026 08:50

Imdunfer · 21/02/2026 08:46

Yes I think on the evidence that we know for facts, thst he was in all probability a driven man who wasn't prepared to be thwarted of scaling Austria's highest mountain by a "weak woman".

He left the last one, she was fine. Why wouldn't he think he could just do the same again?

He's guilty of manslaughter by negligence. His penalty appears to be pretty low but it might not be by Austrian standards, or that might be because the sentencing judge was a climber or because the judge considered her culpable at least partly for her own death. I haven't seen the judgement, I don't know what he said except that he believed that the man didn't intend his girlfriend to die.

I'm very swayed by her mother's attitude. If we're speculating then I'd hazard a guess that she knows she brought up a girl who was a risk taker all her life and lived her own life expecting that risk to end badly one day.

Frankly, he's an absolute idiot if he thought she wouldn't die just because his last girlfriend didn't. He had to have known she would freeze to death in that weather, injured and exhausted, and unable to climb any further. It wasn't even remotely the same situation as his last girlfriend.

And using that as an excuse is like saying you thought it was fine to drink and drive, because the last time you did it, you didn't kill anyone. It's not a good bloody excuse.

I don't think he intended to murder her, but I don't think he cared if she died, and he didn't do a single thing to try to ensure she lived, it seems.

Imdunfer · 21/02/2026 08:50

OtterlyAstounding · 21/02/2026 08:45

I don't imagine he intended to murder her when they set out, or that he coerced her into going on the trip, but given the overwhelming number of mistakes that he, an experienced mountain climber, made:

From their poor equipment, to their nonexistent supplies, to the late hour they set off, not taking the weather into account, or how slow they were making progress (being hours behind) because - as it turned out - she was ill, pressing on after she was injured, waving away the helicopter, telling emergency services they were fine, not bundling her up or taking off her split board, not contacting emergency services until a few hours later...

Well, it doesn't paint a very positive picture of a caring, responsible human whose first priority was his partner's safety.

Well, it doesn't paint a very positive picture of a caring, responsible human whose first priority was his partner's safety.

People guilty of manslaughter by negligence generally aren't.

Imdunfer · 21/02/2026 08:51

OtterlyAstounding · 21/02/2026 08:50

Frankly, he's an absolute idiot if he thought she wouldn't die just because his last girlfriend didn't. He had to have known she would freeze to death in that weather, injured and exhausted, and unable to climb any further. It wasn't even remotely the same situation as his last girlfriend.

And using that as an excuse is like saying you thought it was fine to drink and drive, because the last time you did it, you didn't kill anyone. It's not a good bloody excuse.

I don't think he intended to murder her, but I don't think he cared if she died, and he didn't do a single thing to try to ensure she lived, it seems.

I agree with you.

He's rightly been found guilty of all that.

Womaninhouse17 · 21/02/2026 08:58

WhatTheHellsGoingOn · 21/02/2026 08:42

There’s a lot of stuff that we’ll sadly never know. It said she was an experienced night climber - hence the time of the hike. It would have been a challenge. But we don’t know what sort of state their relationship was in.

He could have threatened or manipulated her into doing it at that time. He could have hidden her correct shoes and told her he’d go with or without her (she may have suspected an affair) or he could have mocked her for not being able to do a mountain she could easily have done, wearing soft shoes etc.

He is to blame but it will tragically take another death or near miss before he’s punished adequately and prevented from harming other women.

Equally, he could have advised her not to go and she could have insisted. As you say, we'll never know.

EasternStandard · 21/02/2026 09:07

Delatron · 21/02/2026 08:46

This actually seems quite likely.

As it is the only explanation that explains the lack of blanket/shelter etc.

It also explains why he left her. He couldn’t get her back up to safety after she fell. Though he could have explained that. She fell and I couldn’t help her is a little more understandable than just leaving her without getting her to shelter and wrapped in a blanket.

I think his ego took over, he pushed and pushed her. She was exhausted, ill and injured and fell and got stuck. He couldn’t help at this point and knew he’d refused emergency help. He didn’t answer his phone as he was getting his story straight.

This would also explain her earlier call to the emergency services that went wrong. She knew she was in trouble. But he wouldn’t descend with her. I imagine his logic was that it was easier by that point to push on to the summit and go down the easier side.

Her choice - descend all alone down the tricky side or stick with him and push on. I don’t think she had much choice. Then she unfortunately fell.

Honesty would have been the best policy here if this was the case.

So his crime - pushing her when she wasn’t up to it and was struggling. Refusing help and not getting prompt help when she fell. So yes pretty bad.

This might be the case, I’d there any evidence that shows it couldn’t be I wonder.

@OtterlyAstoundingyou mentioned crampons being loosened does that indicate something in particular, just out of interest.

OtterlyAstounding · 21/02/2026 09:15

Delatron · 21/02/2026 08:46

This actually seems quite likely.

As it is the only explanation that explains the lack of blanket/shelter etc.

It also explains why he left her. He couldn’t get her back up to safety after she fell. Though he could have explained that. She fell and I couldn’t help her is a little more understandable than just leaving her without getting her to shelter and wrapped in a blanket.

I think his ego took over, he pushed and pushed her. She was exhausted, ill and injured and fell and got stuck. He couldn’t help at this point and knew he’d refused emergency help. He didn’t answer his phone as he was getting his story straight.

This would also explain her earlier call to the emergency services that went wrong. She knew she was in trouble. But he wouldn’t descend with her. I imagine his logic was that it was easier by that point to push on to the summit and go down the easier side.

Her choice - descend all alone down the tricky side or stick with him and push on. I don’t think she had much choice. Then she unfortunately fell.

Honesty would have been the best policy here if this was the case.

So his crime - pushing her when she wasn’t up to it and was struggling. Refusing help and not getting prompt help when she fell. So yes pretty bad.

Exactly!! It really does make sense. Otherwise why would he claim to have been sitting with her for over an hour, discussing whether or not to leave her, with her backpack and split board still on and no emergency blankets or bivy sack??

You'd think once they realised she couldn't go on, and so he either had to stay with her or go on alone, the first thing he'd do was try to protect her from the elements. He bothered enough to tie her to a rock, according to him, so why on earth wouldn't he wrap her in an emergency blanket and help get her into the bivy sack? He only left her at 2 am, so had at least an hour and a half to do that in!! Either he couldn't, because she'd fallen, or he deliberately decided not to.

And that's without going into the fact that he could have called for rescue at any time!

I don't think he went up the mountain intending to murder her, but his actions on top of the mountain certainly feel like him ensuring her death.

Bertiebiscuit · 21/02/2026 09:18

Especially as he's done it before to a previous girlfriend, luckily she survived. How many women does he need to try to kill before he's locked up. Womens ' lives count for so little.

Shadeflower · 21/02/2026 09:20

From my own limited experience, it's very difficult to hear anything on a mountain, so I can see why he didn't hear the phone, and whilst it's easy in hindsight to say he shouldn't have switched it to vibrate, I don't know whether I'd have thought of that in the moment.

SpaceRaccoon · 21/02/2026 09:24

How would being on a mountain mean you don't feel your phone vibrate? Of course you won't hear ui if it's switched off, which is an inexplicable thing to do if you're in communication with rescue teams and its a life or death situation.

The lengths people will go to to defend men is astonishing.

Goatsarebest · 21/02/2026 09:29

Whatafustercluck · 20/02/2026 19:22

Oh bloody hell, I've repeatedly misread it as "Australia's highest mountain" and thought "what the fuck?!" 🙄

You are not alone. Vienna airport has a dedicated help desk for booking flights to Australia for those ending up in Austria by mistake.

OtterlyAstounding · 21/02/2026 09:31

EasternStandard · 21/02/2026 09:07

This might be the case, I’d there any evidence that shows it couldn’t be I wonder.

@OtterlyAstoundingyou mentioned crampons being loosened does that indicate something in particular, just out of interest.

I'm not sure, honestly, as I'm not a mountaineer, and the article I read it in was translated. I've just read they were a bad fit for her boots, so 'loosened' could have meant they were just ill fitting?

Translated from the above article, which is very interesting:

"When the questioning turns to the specific events in the upper third of the ridge (including the aforementioned phone call, the rescue helicopter, Kerstin G.'s condition at the time she was left behind, and the location where the body was found), Thomas P. repeatedly claims to have gaps in his memory. He states that his companion, who according to the indictment was already "incapacitated," urged him to descend alone, saying, "Go now. Go!" Previously, the defendant had testified that the decision had been made jointly.

Hofer questioned how this could have been possible given Kerstin G.'s disorientation, immobility, and complete exhaustion. Repeatedly, conflicting statements emerged regarding equipment, agreements, and the timeline of events. Among other things, it emerged that, in addition to technical errors (crampons too loose and ill-fitting) and inadequate supplies (the accused only had gummy bears for food), insufficient emergency equipment had been carried.

The defendant stated, among other things, that he did not own a bivouac sack. He claimed he was unaware that his girlfriend had brought a rescue blanket and a one-person bivouac sack. He added that he later wondered "why she hadn't used the equipment." Further questions followed, to which the defendant cited ignorance, his own unwell state of mind, or memory lapses.

Particular attention is being paid to the question of why an emergency call wasn't made when Kerstin G. could only crawl and eventually no longer move at all. The accused stated that he assumed help was already on its way. However, further calls and return calls from the emergency services went unanswered for several hours. Thomas P. stated that he neither received nor saw them."

Then another translated <a class="break-all" href="https://archive.is/20260220144507/www.zeit.de/gesellschaft/2026-02/grossglockner-prozess-urteil-bewaehrungsstrafe-geldstrafe/seite-2#selection-1779.0-1806.0" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">article:

"They couldn't go any further on a snow-covered ramp. She collapsed on the ramp and could only continue on all fours. "I tried to talk her into continuing," says P. He got out some tea, but it was already frozen. Then he secured his girlfriend to a rocky outcrop with a sling and set off to get help. He hadn't thought about the bivouac sack in Kerstin G.'s backpack, which could have protected her from hypothermia. He had previously taken off Kerstin G.'s backpack and lay down next to her. But she told him to leave.

During the trial, Judge Hofer shows pictures taken by mountain rescue teams of the deceased when she was found. In these pictures, Kerstin G. is hanging with her feet in the air. She is tied to a rock outcrop with a sling, her body hyperextended backward, her backpack on her back and her splitboard still attached. "This position doesn't correspond with what you've said," Hofer tells the defendant. And he can't explain it.

Whatever happened that night shortly before reaching the summit of the Großglockner, it doesn't paint the defendant in a good light."

Delatron · 21/02/2026 09:32

OtterlyAstounding · 21/02/2026 09:15

Exactly!! It really does make sense. Otherwise why would he claim to have been sitting with her for over an hour, discussing whether or not to leave her, with her backpack and split board still on and no emergency blankets or bivy sack??

You'd think once they realised she couldn't go on, and so he either had to stay with her or go on alone, the first thing he'd do was try to protect her from the elements. He bothered enough to tie her to a rock, according to him, so why on earth wouldn't he wrap her in an emergency blanket and help get her into the bivy sack? He only left her at 2 am, so had at least an hour and a half to do that in!! Either he couldn't, because she'd fallen, or he deliberately decided not to.

And that's without going into the fact that he could have called for rescue at any time!

I don't think he went up the mountain intending to murder her, but his actions on top of the mountain certainly feel like him ensuring her death.

It’s the only plausible explanation.

He clearly made the call to lie. Then couldn’t explain why he didn’t wrap
her in a blanket or use the shelter. He didn’t think it through that far. Therefore his story makes no sense. Her being injured, falling and him not being able to pull her back up to safety does.

OtterlyAstounding · 21/02/2026 09:34

Womaninhouse17 · 21/02/2026 08:58

Equally, he could have advised her not to go and she could have insisted. As you say, we'll never know.

If I were in that situation, I'd tell my husband, "No, don't be stupid. You've not got the right equipment, it's too late in the day, and you're not feeling 100%. It's too much of a risk, today. We'll do it another time." And that would be it. End of.

But then I actually place his health and safety over my own whims. I have a feeling that this man didn't feel the same way about his girlfriend.

SpaceRaccoon · 21/02/2026 09:34

I wonder if there would be people defending Brian Laundrie too, if that had gone to trial.

Imdunfer · 21/02/2026 09:39

SpaceRaccoon · 21/02/2026 09:24

How would being on a mountain mean you don't feel your phone vibrate? Of course you won't hear ui if it's switched off, which is an inexplicable thing to do if you're in communication with rescue teams and its a life or death situation.

The lengths people will go to to defend men is astonishing.

What's astonishing is the "facts" people are making up that didn't seem to occur to an Austrian judge familiar with climbing mountains to the extent that he is himself part of a mountain rescue team.

OtterlyAstounding · 21/02/2026 09:39

Delatron · 21/02/2026 09:32

It’s the only plausible explanation.

He clearly made the call to lie. Then couldn’t explain why he didn’t wrap
her in a blanket or use the shelter. He didn’t think it through that far. Therefore his story makes no sense. Her being injured, falling and him not being able to pull her back up to safety does.

Even the judge pointed out in the articles I linked above that it just doesn't add up/doesn't make sense. Of course, Plamberger is blaming it on the cold and exhaustion, and I have no doubt he wasn't at his best, mentally...but it's the only explanation that fits with them sitting there for an hour and a half, with her unable to even crawl, and him not bothering to do anything to warm her up.

It's also disturbing that the judge calls him an 'excellent mountaineer' but then doesn't seem to question how being an 'excellent mountaineer' doesn't tally up with his absolute lack of preparedness, or his actions on top of the mountain. How would an 'excellent mountaineer' accidentally do such a thoroughly piss poor job?