Man left his girlfriend to freeze to death

[Trevordidit]

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

This is from the judgment. I'm not sure what evidence you want. The video from the helicopter clearly shows that Kerstin is still moving and neither she nor Thomas look at the helicopter, let alone signal for help. If Kerstin had been hypothermic at that stage, she would have died much earlier than she did.

You wrote: “The evidence is that she was not hypothermic when the helicopter was there.”

I didn’t see that specific detail at the time and asked you for the report from court that supports what you said.

You wrote: “If Kerstin had been hypothermic at that stage, she would have died much earlier than she did.”

Hypothermia sets in stages so I’d imagine it would be odd for evidence in court to put a time on when it set in and say it was after 11pm. She had been climbing for 17 hours and was moving extremely slowly when the helicopter circled.

Well isn't there enough doubt about the emergency services responses to create reasonable doubt? Why would he call the Alpine police at 00.35 if not to request help? You wouldn't call them in order to re assure them.
So maybe revised guidance could be an outcome. Should they speak with each individual if each person is individually responsible?

So basically a few posters especially @prh47bridge are saying that it's perfectly okay with a non payment group of climbers to not be responsible for the death of another climber, leave them behind and finish the climb?

This wasn't a group, there was a relationship dynamic and that's crucial. Within that one takes care of the other.

Regardless of whether the judge said the previous girlfriend's testament was not relevant to the case, NOT dismissed, it's clear that the outcome was negligence and that non payment climbing groups should be better aware for the safety of those they climb with, especially as a couple, specifically male/female.

The prosecution case was that she was not hypothermic at that stage but became hypothermic later.

No, I am not saying it is perfectly ok. The question is at what point mistakes made by a climber cross into criminal negligence. Many mountaineers don't regard Thomas P's actions as perfectly ok, but they don't think his failures amount to criminal negligence. The court held him to the same standard as a trained, professional guide. Many mountaineers believe that this is inappropriate for someone who was himself inexperienced and had never been formally trained.

Just because someone has made mistakes which have led to a death, that does not necessarily mean they are guilty of criminal negligence or manslaughter. An honest error is not generally a crime. To give an example, if someone untrained in first aid makes an honest attempt to treat someone who is injured but their treatment is incorrect and, as a result, the patient dies, they are not guilty of any crime.

Just to be clear, I don't have any strong view on this case either way. The judge was an experienced mountaineer, so his decision that Thomas P was guilty clearly carries a lot of weight. But other experienced mountaineers disagree and are adamant the judge got it wrong. As someone who has never climbed a mountain and never will (far too dangerous for my liking!), I don't think I am in any position to judge who is right.

The opposite. The prosecution argued her performance had been “declining continuously” as opposed to there being a sudden drop after the helicopter left.

The prosecutor Johann Frischman said the defence claim that she was fine until that point “contradicts the objective facts of the expert report”.

https://tirol.orf.at/stories/3342697/

Yet IIRC she wasn't equipped properly and wasn't even wearing hiking boots but snowboarding boots.

It is speculated that she attempted to call for help at 5.22pm as her phone called 149 - the emergency number is 140

They stopped moving at 8pm.

Other hikers called the emergency services much earlier but he declined help

A rescue helicopter reached them at 10.40 but he failed to acknowledge this first rescue helicopter sent. He refused to answer the question of whether she was able to walk at this stage.

He insisted that they didn't need help when contacted at 12.30am by rescue

He failed to put her in the emergency sack or use the emergency equipment she was carrying when he went to "get help" at 2am saying he had forgotten about it.

When he finally called for help after 3 am he at first claimed everything was fine and only later in the conversation revealed his gf was still on the mountain. He refused to return to her on the mountain-

His Go Pro camera "disappeared" and investigators were unable to access any footage from that climb.

Yes, the prosecution case was that her performance was declining, but it was also the prosecution case that she did not become hypothermic until later.

@Lunde

Yet IIRC she wasn't equipped properly and wasn't even wearing hiking boots but snowboarding boots.

That is correct. She also did not have crampons and was using a pair borrowed from Thomas P that did not fit her, and she was using a splitboard rather than dedicated skis, making the skiing sections of the climb more difficult. They had little emergency equipment. She had an emergency bivouac bag in her pack, but he did not.

It is speculated that she attempted to call for help at 5.22pm as her phone called 149 - the emergency number is 140

Yes, and an hour later she inexplicably texted "we're down" to her mother.

They stopped moving at 8pm.

Yes, although this appears to have been a temporary stop.

Other hikers called the emergency services much earlier but he declined help

The only help was the rescue helicopter. See the next point.

A rescue helicopter reached them at 10.40 but he failed to acknowledge this first rescue helicopter sent. He refused to answer the question of whether she was able to walk at this stage.

Neither climber acknowledged the helicopter. They didn't even look up at it. They were still moving towards the summit, albeit slowly. The judge's notes say that she could only crawl on all fours at this stage. As you say, Thomas P refused to confirm or deny this in court. Note that, if they had signalled for help they would have been charged over £5,000 for the rescue. If they did not have insurance to cover this, that is a strong disincentive to call for help.

He insisted that they didn't need help when contacted at 12.30am by rescue

No, he was not contacted by rescue. He contacted the Alpine Police. The content of this call is disputed and there is no recording to confirm what was said. Mathias A, who took the call, says that Thomas P insisted help was not required. Thomas maintained that the whole purpose of the call was to request a rescue for his girlfriend. It may be that Thomas did indeed insist that no help was needed, although it is hard to see why he would call the Alpine Police simply to say this. It may equally be that this was a tragic misunderstanding.

He failed to put her in the emergency sack or use the emergency equipment she was carrying when he went to "get help" at 2am saying he had forgotten about it.

Correct.

When he finally called for help after 3 am he at first claimed everything was fine and only later in the conversation revealed his gf was still on the mountain. He refused to return to her on the mountain-

Again, this is Mathias A's account of the conversation which is disputed by Thomas, but he did indeed decline to return to Kerstin's last position, saying that he needed rest. If he was genuinely exhausted to the point were attempting to return to Kerstin would have risked him becoming a second casualty, he was right to refuse. However, if he could have returned to her safely, he should have done so.

His Go Pro camera "disappeared" and investigators were unable to access any footage from that climb.

The inverted commas suggest you think it was lost deliberately. The prosecution did not argue this. I'm not saying it was not deliberate, but accidental loss in the extreme conditions cannot be ruled out.

I think one of the things that led to the charges was that he told the police officer that interviewed him in the morning that he was acting as the guide for the tour - although he later attempts to back track from that position.

Of course it can't be proved legally by I personally think the loss of the Go Pro is significant as it would be time stamped evidence of their condition.

The 12.35 call was one of the areas where Thomas P contradicts himself in his evidence - at one point, he said that his 12:35 call was to request help, but later on, he would say that during the 12:35 call he was unaware that Gurtner needed assistance.

If he requests a rescue for his girlfriend who has to pay?

The prosecution did not say hypothermia set in during the small window between the helicopter leaving and her death. As per the prosecution quote. She had been climbing for 17 hours and had become very slow when the helicopter arrived.

No one can know at what precise time the medical definition of hypothermia began for her. Also, people don’t go from having hypothermia to becoming hypothermic, you can have mild hypothermia, be mildly hypothermic.

I'm guessing but, based on the information I've found, I think she would pay if they only rescued her, they would both pay if both were rescued.

The prosecution say it was several hours between the helicopter leaving and her death. She is believed to have died some time between 2am and 3am. In the conditions that prevailed on the mountain that night, that is not a small window. It is more than enough time for hypothermia to set in and lead to death. The prosecution did not at any point allege that Kerstin was already hypothermic when the helicopter saw them. They said she was exhausted and struggling, not that she was hypothermic.

Dunno but I wouldn’t accept £5k as a “strong” disincentive - if you are working (and mountaineering is not a freebie hobby like sea swimming or a cheap hobby like the local gym) that’s a squeeze on the credit card.

Might be an argument when you are exhausted and not thinking straight and cannot conceive of actual life threatening danger.

They were both badly underprepared, with equipment and planning.

In that case, if emergency services are circling at that time of night oughtn't they have responsibility towards individuals which accounts for a level of disorientation?
I mean if they went out and actually filmed her late at night going very slowly and then don't land they are by implication assuming her companion is taking responsibility. They are also assuming competance
It all seems very blurred.

You wrote: “The evidence is that she was not hypothermic when the helicopter was there.”

Maybe you meant “there was no evidence she was hypothermic when…It’s impossible for prosecution or defence to cite a precise medical time that hypothermia set in for her so no one is saying a time in court.

You wrote: “If Kerstin had been hypothermic at that stage, she would have died much earlier than she did.”

There isn’t a medical timeframe on hypothermia onset to death, so this isn’t correct. She wasn’t collapsed by it but that doesn’t mean she wasn’t suffering from it.

What the prosecution say (the quote pasted earlier from court) was the medical report contradicts plamberger’s suggestion that she was fine until after the helicopter left. They can’t say she was hypothermic because medical evidence isn’t sophisticated enough to pinpoint a precise time. But that inability doesn’t give weight to the idea she wasn’t.

She had been climbing for 17 hours and however tough she was, she was moving very slowly. As I recall there was some record of her phone dialling emergency services and that call being ended earlier in the climb. I wouldn’t be surprised if she realised she was in trouble and then was convinced by him that they would make it and as you say both may have been worried about rescue costs. Then as she worsened and hypothermia began - confusion is a symptom - rejected the helicopter.

I don't think it's the emergency services' responsibility to guess whether people are in trouble. It's not workable.

If people don't think through the risks on a mountain climb in poor conditions that lack of preparation may be fatal. In this case they could have called for help and didn't, and that cannot be made somebody else's responsibility.

Someone from that area (IIRC) posted up thread that there's no way they wouldn't have had climbers insurance, that even people who climb much less that he did have it routinely, and that covers the helicopter. So the cost shouldn't have been a consideration.

Surely the police would have established if he or she had insurance cover. And that would be a major consideration and consequence.

You'd assume so

You wrote "when she was hypothermic and might have been seeing fairies at that point he waved away a helicopter sent to help her". That was what started this exchange.

The prosecution did not argue that she was hypothermic at this point. It would clearly have helped their case if they could have shown that she was. It therefore follows that the evidence does not show that she was hypothermic at this stage.

The time it takes from the onset of hypothermia to death depends on a range of factors. In the severe conditions pertaining on the mountain at that time (windchill taking the effective temperature to -20C), it is unlikely that she would have survived more than 3 hours after the onset of hypothermia. Given that the prosecution place the time of death between 2am and 3am, that means it is highly unlikely that she was hypothermic at 10:40pm.

You stated positively that she was hypothermic. It is clear that the evidence does not show this. You have tried to demand evidence that she was not hypothermic when, in reality, you are the one who needs to provide evidence that she was. You are unable to do so for the simple reason that there is no evidence that she was hypothermic at that stage and the available evidence strongly points to her being exhausted but not yet hypothermic, and certainly not seeing fairies.

By the way, you also stated that he waved away the helicopter, when the evidence is that he did not. Neither of the climbers made any sort of signal to the helicopter. Indeed, they didn't even look up at it.

“That was what started this exchange.” I wasn’t wondering.

”It therefore follows that the evidence does not show that she was hypothermic at this stage.” as per my previous posts, it’s impossible for anyone to say when she became hypothermic, mildly or severely. You’re presenting my point back to me. Neither prosecution or defence could possibly have a pinpointed a clinical time. So the defence suggested she was fine until after the helicopter left. The prosecution suggested she wasn’t.

Your points on hypothermia seem to be your understanding or opinion rather than have any medical backing as far as I can see. Which is why I asked - not demanded - if you had supporting quotes from the trial.

“You stated positively that she was hypothermic.” - as you stated that she wasn’t.

“You have tried to demand evidence that she was not hypothermic when, in reality, you are the one who needs to provide evidence that she was.” I’ve demanded… nothing. I asked you if you had reports from court, as I’ve tried to provide in posts. I don’t “need” to prove anything. No one can provide this evidence as it doesn’t exist.

But what the prosecution case does state is that the medical report supports a continuous decline in her condition rather than the sudden drop the defence said happened after the helicopter had left her. So me saying she was hypothermic after 17 hours climbing, struggling to keep going, having already dialled for help, before dying 3-4 hours later of hypothermia isn’t precisely what was said in court said, no. I should have said “could have been hypothermic and seeing fairies…” for your part, you should not have said evidence suggests she was not hypothermic at that precise time.

”By the way…” already addressed with pp, the report I saw saying waved away was shorthand for “rejected”. Not sure what your point is.