Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

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
niwtdaaam · 27/02/2026 12:16

cosimarama · 27/02/2026 11:30

She sent the text before the helicopter rescuers saw her moving with him on the climb.

But what could be the significance of the judge questioning the rescuers about the position she was found - he asked if she could have fallen and they said she couldn’t have and then reiterated that she wasn’t wearing gloves. It’s difficult not speaking the language to understand if there are any implications from this. Then they said it was a miracle her body had stayed in the position it had given the wind force.

I don't understand the circumstances in which she was found either (and I am in fluent in German).
I don't think the lack of gloves is that significant or that this could in anyway point at foul play on Thomas' part because it's known that when people are severely hypothermic they feel like they are overheating and try to take clothes off. So they couldn't use this evidence to pin something on Thomas because it's likely she took them off herself.
Her boots were also loose apparently.

The judge said she was found in a different location to that described by Thomas and the position she was found in (hanging backwards with her head tipped back) didn't fit with his description of how he left her.

There's something very amiss here regarding how she was left.

cosimarama · 27/02/2026 13:52

niwtdaaam · 27/02/2026 12:16

I don't understand the circumstances in which she was found either (and I am in fluent in German).
I don't think the lack of gloves is that significant or that this could in anyway point at foul play on Thomas' part because it's known that when people are severely hypothermic they feel like they are overheating and try to take clothes off. So they couldn't use this evidence to pin something on Thomas because it's likely she took them off herself.
Her boots were also loose apparently.

The judge said she was found in a different location to that described by Thomas and the position she was found in (hanging backwards with her head tipped back) didn't fit with his description of how he left her.

There's something very amiss here regarding how she was left.

Thank you niwtdaaam. Mentioning gloves didn’t seem relevant to the question but perhaps he mentioned it as an aside.

Do we know if the rope he used to tie her to the rock was attached to her body? I don’t really understand if there’s a possibility that she untied it and her boots and removed her gloves in her hypothermic state, then moved to a different point where she died?

niwtdaaam · 27/02/2026 14:26

cosimarama · 27/02/2026 13:52

Thank you niwtdaaam. Mentioning gloves didn’t seem relevant to the question but perhaps he mentioned it as an aside.

Do we know if the rope he used to tie her to the rock was attached to her body? I don’t really understand if there’s a possibility that she untied it and her boots and removed her gloves in her hypothermic state, then moved to a different point where she died?

Yes, she was hanging from the rope, with her head tipped backwards.

placemats · 27/02/2026 14:45

niwtdaaam · 27/02/2026 14:26

Yes, she was hanging from the rope, with her head tipped backwards.

Sounds like a death throw. Much was made of the virus, viral pneumonia and the ibuprofen in her system, nothing I can see about time of death. RIP Kerstin.

Lunde · 27/02/2026 14:58

cosimarama · 27/02/2026 11:30

She sent the text before the helicopter rescuers saw her moving with him on the climb.

But what could be the significance of the judge questioning the rescuers about the position she was found - he asked if she could have fallen and they said she couldn’t have and then reiterated that she wasn’t wearing gloves. It’s difficult not speaking the language to understand if there are any implications from this. Then they said it was a miracle her body had stayed in the position it had given the wind force.

It would be interesting to know what the helicopter rescuers actually saw? Sometimes the brain sees A and assumes the answer is B when it wasn't.

Was she actively climbing or was she on a rope, next to him and they assumed she was still actively climbing. If she was still active - why had they made no progress in 2 hours?

placemats · 27/02/2026 16:10

Lunde · 27/02/2026 14:58

It would be interesting to know what the helicopter rescuers actually saw? Sometimes the brain sees A and assumes the answer is B when it wasn't.

Was she actively climbing or was she on a rope, next to him and they assumed she was still actively climbing. If she was still active - why had they made no progress in 2 hours?

The helicopter turned back because of the winds at around 6am the following day. The rescue of the deceased was done by a mountain climb.

ILikeKeirStarmer · 27/02/2026 16:30

I asked another friend, who I think used to climb with the friend who thinks he killed her deliberately. The second friend thought differently and said it was probably an accident but he has liability because of greater experience.

I mention this to show how open to interpretation the events are and how different people come to different answers when asked the same question.

I agree with my first friend. At the very least, he did not seem interested in helping her to safety.

Lunde · 27/02/2026 17:45

placemats · 27/02/2026 16:10

The helicopter turned back because of the winds at around 6am the following day. The rescue of the deceased was done by a mountain climb.

Edited

Oh - I meant the first helicopter at 10.50 pm that he waved off and turned his back to

placemats · 27/02/2026 18:17

Lunde · 27/02/2026 17:45

Oh - I meant the first helicopter at 10.50 pm that he waved off and turned his back to

I'm still puzzled as to why that isn't classed as rescue attempt no one, because that's what it was.

cosimarama · 28/02/2026 10:36

Lunde · 27/02/2026 14:58

It would be interesting to know what the helicopter rescuers actually saw? Sometimes the brain sees A and assumes the answer is B when it wasn't.

Was she actively climbing or was she on a rope, next to him and they assumed she was still actively climbing. If she was still active - why had they made no progress in 2 hours?

The translation I got from Kronen Zeitung seems pretty certain from the rescue team that they saw them both climbing:

English (UK) ¢
The duo turned away."
Now the co-pilot of the police is called to the witness stand. He had taken over the flight radio during the operation. "We turned on the traction headlight - because we didn't know if the alpinist duo was seeing us. And every time the pull headlight pointed at the two, they turned away and continued climbing," he describes, "there was no sign of emergency."

I can’t remember if the bf was questioned about his or their reaction to the helicopter circling them. I think I read that they went round them six times.

guinnessguzzler · 28/02/2026 10:47

@cosimarama 'I can’t remember if the bf was questioned about his or their reaction to the helicopter circling them.'

Honestly it seems like he wasn't really questioned about much at all. Perhaps that is unfair but the lack of explanation for all sorts of odd behaviour tends to suggest he just wasn't asked. Perhaps he just refused to give much by way of response but I find it very strange and frustrating.

prh47bridge · 28/02/2026 17:25

I do not agree with those on here who think Thomas killed Kerstin deliberately. I don't believe the evidence points to that. By the way, those posting that he did need to be aware that, although it may be unlikely, he could sue them for libel under UK law and, unless they could prove that he deliberately killed her, they would lose.

The judge was essentially of the view that Thomas overestimated his own ability and underestimated the conditions. He had no formal training and had never taken an alpine course. He knew how to move fast, but didn't know how to lead and lacked the skills to know what to do when things went wrong. And he did not understand his girlfriend's level of ability. The judge was of the view that his behaviour was not that of an experienced alpinist with training in rescue methods. The judge's answer to the question some have asked as to why he didn't wrap his girlfriend in a blanket is that he did not leave her on flat ground as he claimed, but that she became so exhausted that she was not able to climb through that section and that he tried for 1.5 hours to get her up but he lacked the skills and knowledge to do so.

If the judge is correct, the question is at what point do overestimating your own ability and that of your partner, and underestimating the conditions tip an incident over from an accident to a criminal offence. The judge basically held Thomas to the same standards as would apply to a professional guide. It is now for the appeal courts to decide whether that was appropriate.

By the way, we don't just have the rescue team saying they were both climbing when the helicopter observed them. According to the judge, there was video footage which showed that they were both still climbing, although he (the judge) says Kerstin was clearly struggling. He says that in 5 minutes she only manages to move 20cm upwards in quite manageable terrain.

TessTickle0 · 28/02/2026 18:54

@prh47bridge I always find your posts so helpful and informative on these sort of matters.
I remember your posts on the unexplained mysteries threads from a year or so back and found them very interesting.

placemats · 28/02/2026 19:32

prh47bridge · 28/02/2026 17:25

I do not agree with those on here who think Thomas killed Kerstin deliberately. I don't believe the evidence points to that. By the way, those posting that he did need to be aware that, although it may be unlikely, he could sue them for libel under UK law and, unless they could prove that he deliberately killed her, they would lose.

The judge was essentially of the view that Thomas overestimated his own ability and underestimated the conditions. He had no formal training and had never taken an alpine course. He knew how to move fast, but didn't know how to lead and lacked the skills to know what to do when things went wrong. And he did not understand his girlfriend's level of ability. The judge was of the view that his behaviour was not that of an experienced alpinist with training in rescue methods. The judge's answer to the question some have asked as to why he didn't wrap his girlfriend in a blanket is that he did not leave her on flat ground as he claimed, but that she became so exhausted that she was not able to climb through that section and that he tried for 1.5 hours to get her up but he lacked the skills and knowledge to do so.

If the judge is correct, the question is at what point do overestimating your own ability and that of your partner, and underestimating the conditions tip an incident over from an accident to a criminal offence. The judge basically held Thomas to the same standards as would apply to a professional guide. It is now for the appeal courts to decide whether that was appropriate.

By the way, we don't just have the rescue team saying they were both climbing when the helicopter observed them. According to the judge, there was video footage which showed that they were both still climbing, although he (the judge) says Kerstin was clearly struggling. He says that in 5 minutes she only manages to move 20cm upwards in quite manageable terrain.

Intent to kill in this case is difficult to prove and would certainly lead to a not guilty verdict.

The prosecution was right to go with a charge for manslaughter by gross negligence. The judge ruled a guilty verdict and the sentence was 5 months suspended prison sentence and a fine.

The appeals are as follows.

For the defence, against the verdict and the sentence.

For the prosecution, the leniency of the verdict.

Your post lends towards the defence, and for similar reasons you rightly outlined in your first paragraph, I would urge you to proceed with caution.

placemats · 28/02/2026 19:42

To add.

Thomas P was not charged for murder. And the appeals have no relation to a charge of murder or conviction for murder.

Therefore people can speculate whether he did intend to kill Kerstin G. Indeed, on many social media sites across the globe that has been expressed by individual posters.

prh47bridge · 28/02/2026 20:38

placemats · 28/02/2026 19:32

Intent to kill in this case is difficult to prove and would certainly lead to a not guilty verdict.

The prosecution was right to go with a charge for manslaughter by gross negligence. The judge ruled a guilty verdict and the sentence was 5 months suspended prison sentence and a fine.

The appeals are as follows.

For the defence, against the verdict and the sentence.

For the prosecution, the leniency of the verdict.

Your post lends towards the defence, and for similar reasons you rightly outlined in your first paragraph, I would urge you to proceed with caution.

Edited

I'm trying not to lean either way as I am really not sure of the rights and wrongs of this case. However, leaning towards the defence or the current manslaughter verdict cannot give rise to a libel case. That is rather different from saying that he murdered Kerstin G, which could give rise to a libel case.

placemats · 28/02/2026 21:27

prh47bridge · 28/02/2026 20:38

I'm trying not to lean either way as I am really not sure of the rights and wrongs of this case. However, leaning towards the defence or the current manslaughter verdict cannot give rise to a libel case. That is rather different from saying that he murdered Kerstin G, which could give rise to a libel case.

And with GDPR EU/UK regulations on a website that has anonymity at it's core, a libel case is highly unlikely.

GoneBackToTheWorld · 28/02/2026 22:59

He's going to be very busy if he has to sue nine out of ten fuckers on every mountaineering forum, sub and discussion server.

cosimarama · 28/02/2026 23:40

prh47bridge · 28/02/2026 17:25

I do not agree with those on here who think Thomas killed Kerstin deliberately. I don't believe the evidence points to that. By the way, those posting that he did need to be aware that, although it may be unlikely, he could sue them for libel under UK law and, unless they could prove that he deliberately killed her, they would lose.

The judge was essentially of the view that Thomas overestimated his own ability and underestimated the conditions. He had no formal training and had never taken an alpine course. He knew how to move fast, but didn't know how to lead and lacked the skills to know what to do when things went wrong. And he did not understand his girlfriend's level of ability. The judge was of the view that his behaviour was not that of an experienced alpinist with training in rescue methods. The judge's answer to the question some have asked as to why he didn't wrap his girlfriend in a blanket is that he did not leave her on flat ground as he claimed, but that she became so exhausted that she was not able to climb through that section and that he tried for 1.5 hours to get her up but he lacked the skills and knowledge to do so.

If the judge is correct, the question is at what point do overestimating your own ability and that of your partner, and underestimating the conditions tip an incident over from an accident to a criminal offence. The judge basically held Thomas to the same standards as would apply to a professional guide. It is now for the appeal courts to decide whether that was appropriate.

By the way, we don't just have the rescue team saying they were both climbing when the helicopter observed them. According to the judge, there was video footage which showed that they were both still climbing, although he (the judge) says Kerstin was clearly struggling. He says that in 5 minutes she only manages to move 20cm upwards in quite manageable terrain.

He would have to be an extremely wealthy man with a very busy team of lawyers to try and pursue cases against every internet user who has accused him of murder and mnet would kill the thread at the hint of legal action. And asking questions about what happened is fine, for anyone worried.

I think pp’s example of the husband who left the wife and child to drown in unexpected quicksand is interesting. He didn’t set out with the intention to harm but when the opportunity arose, he used his advantage to keep them in danger. It may be that the bf here wasn’t thinking straight and used every advantage he had to help Kerstin to the best of his ability but there are obviously many questions for a man who had a working mobile phone and three hours hike left in him when he left her where and how he did.

placemats · 01/03/2026 00:06

I think pp’s example of the husband who left the wife and child to drown in unexpected quicksand is interesting. He didn’t set out with the intention to harm but when the opportunity arose, he used his advantage to keep them in danger.

That was me @cosimarama

I agree with the intention not to set out to kill.

The article, written by the woman, stressed she and her child were helped out of the quicksand by a complete stranger who quickly left after.

She did leave her husband the next day after a very stressful journey back in the car. After leaving him, he wanted custody of the child. She was lucky in that he only got supervised visitation rights. I read it in the Guardian years ago and can't find a link sadly.

It's an article that will stay with me forever.

mumofoneAloneandwell · 01/03/2026 00:10

Yanbu

Man left his girlfriend to freeze to death
prh47bridge · 01/03/2026 00:14

placemats · 28/02/2026 21:27

And with GDPR EU/UK regulations on a website that has anonymity at it's core, a libel case is highly unlikely.

I agree that a libel case is highly unlikely, but not for that reason. He would have no problem getting a court order compelling Mumsnet to reveal everything they know about the identity of any poster he wished to sue. GDPR would not offer any protection in that situation.

guinnessguzzler · 01/03/2026 11:26

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwy8ppn4142o

Not seen this shared here yet; new article on the BBC. I found it quite interesting. At the start, it sums up the main issue being the difference in experience level between the two climbers being why he was held, to an extent, responsible. That may well be the case in terms of the law as applied in this case but to me the issue is more that at the point she desperately needed help, she was not able to seek it herself and he was able but didn't. I get that they made mistakes along the way to get to that point but you really don't need to be an experienced climber to respond to messages offering help. She may or may not have been experienced but at some point she was clearly no longer able to ask for help while he was but didn't. I do wonder if sometimes people with a level of expertise actually over estimate that, like when the nurses unions initially said the general public couldn't wear masks in the virus because they didn't know about correct donning and doffing. It's not rocket science to know that someone so exhausted or ill that they are unable to move is unlikely to survive overnight on a high mountain and that you need help. Regardless of his level of experience, anyone there at that time should have tried to get help, and I think thale vast, vast majority of people would have, as others who saw them actually did try to.

Stock image of a female climber wearing a backpack hanging onto a rock

Grossglockner manslaughter case sends ripples through climbing community

A woman's death during a climbing trip has sparked debates about personal responsibility and risk.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwy8ppn4142o

AstonUniversityPotholeDepartment · 01/03/2026 11:37

placemats · 01/03/2026 00:06

I think pp’s example of the husband who left the wife and child to drown in unexpected quicksand is interesting. He didn’t set out with the intention to harm but when the opportunity arose, he used his advantage to keep them in danger.

That was me @cosimarama

I agree with the intention not to set out to kill.

The article, written by the woman, stressed she and her child were helped out of the quicksand by a complete stranger who quickly left after.

She did leave her husband the next day after a very stressful journey back in the car. After leaving him, he wanted custody of the child. She was lucky in that he only got supervised visitation rights. I read it in the Guardian years ago and can't find a link sadly.

It's an article that will stay with me forever.

Is it this article?
https://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2004/apr/06/features11.g22

The day my husband tried to kill me

It was to be a holiday that brought a troubled family together. But when Mary Cecil Pook and her two children walked into danger, her husband watched and did nothing.

https://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2004/apr/06/features11.g22

placemats · 01/03/2026 11:48

AstonUniversityPotholeDepartment · 01/03/2026 11:37

Yes, thank you. I got a few details wrong 😔

I had in my mind that the article included details of a strained journey home and a separation with child access difficulties obviously that's not in the article.

However the rescue from the quicksand is. That's probably the most important aspect. Chilling also about the woman who instinctively thought her husband would push her.

Swipe left for the next trending thread