Austria - Thomas Plamberger leaves gf, Kerstin Gurtner to freeze to death on Austria's tallest mountain - charged with manslaughter - Jan.19/2025

[Charlot123]

One thing I can think the defense might try to say--perhaps the phone wouldn't function if it was in an external pocket, due to it being so cold, so it behaved as if it were off (happened to me once, at sea level, in 0 degree weather in Boston!).
Could also explain why he didn't call for help.

Not sure this sort of defense would hold up, but it may be one strategy used. MOO.

Sorry, but did you have an Android or an iPhone?

I love androids but certain wire contacts there are flimsy and tend to loosen in dampness. So I wonder if it was "wetness" of the air rather than cold.

Iphones, less smart than 'droids, are more sturdy and less temperamental weather-wise. I'd be surprised if anything happened to them.

Then, of course, there are other phones (Huawei is what some people use here), but i don't know about their behavior.

I believe Thomas merely said that he didn't hear it. One wonders what was he so preoccupied with all this time.

 

[Panniniclaus]

I feel this case will be made less on what happened on the mountain and more on the state of this relationship before they went on this adventure.

 

[Charlot123]

I thought that exact same thing last night.

But LE would've done an autopsy on Kersten, right? Or maybe not... Maybe only the two of them knew she was pregnant, if she was that is.

If LE knew Kersten was pregnant, wouldn't there be double manslaughter charges?

IMO.

I don't think it was the case. Even if he didn't want the child.

Austria is a pretty liberal country. At later stages, she would not be climbing at night.

One thing always comes to my mind. That Thomas was greedy and didn't want to spend money on anything. Hence, the snowshoes, probably no insurance for her (I don't know if he was a member of any club), the unwillingness to call the rescue if her portion had to be paid for. If each step is explained by pathogical greed, this case makes perfect sense.

Start with "he didn't want to buy alpine climbing shoes for her", "didn't want to pay for the cost of her going up", "didn't want to pay for her club membership", "didn't want to splurge on the second emergency kit", etc, etc.

 

[MrsAddick]

I feel this case will be made less on what happened on the mountain and more on the state of this relationship before they went on this adventure.

In the Austrian legal system, what is required to successfully convict the accused of ‘grossly negligent man slaughter’?

Assuming that the prosecutor doesn’t need to prove ‘intent’ or motive? Therefore, can the relationship dynamic help build a case or is it less relevant (than say, a murder case)?? I have no idea

 

[Trebor5591]

It seems there is a certain type of active outdoors person who enjoys dragging those less capable (inexperienced, unfit, too young) into dangerous situations. Why? Perhaps to prove their superiority or control. Perhaps as a “punishment” for perceived misbehaviour. Perhaps to play out a “saviour complex “ I heard someone refer to it as “assault by nature.”

He may not have intended to kill her, but I’m sure he knew she’d essentially be at his mercy at some point during the climb.

Hanlon’s Razor says "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." The position taken fabricates a villain where there is likely just an enthusiast with more skills than their companion. I feel that the reality is probably not a calculated "assault by nature" or a "savior complex," but rather a failure of awareness in the midst of an inherently dangerous adventure. The more able and experienced mountain climber probably wasn’t trying to hurt their less experienced companion on purpose; they simply overestimated the companion's ability and underestimated the terrain and weather. The authorities seem to be criminalizing what was probably just poor judgment—unless the authorities have more evidence that we don’t know about.

 

[beubeubeu]

It is interesting that i am thinking of her cell phone on page 5. I would have asked these questions much sooner if the deceased were a man.

I still dont. The only info about her devices is that they were analyzed by investigators along with his. Plural sport watch, plural smartphone. No mention of her doing anything with her smartphone in any source or being called - so either she didnt have it with her or she wasnt able to use it at all.
Otherwise it would be like... why charge him if she also had her phone on her, also was called or - to the very least some activity was detected? That would very much support his claim that it might be their decision to not attempt any calls for help till some point cause they thought something.
But thats certainly way too many unsupported assumptions.

I believe Thomas merely said that he didn't hear it. One wonders what was he so preoccupied with all this time.

How could he hear it if phone was on vibration only? And why need to hear it? He had to see bunch of unanswered calls while he called them.

Austria is a pretty liberal country. At later stages, she would not be climbing at night.

What do you mean by liberal country?
No matter if she was pregnant or not, narcissistic men are murdering their pregnant girlfriends and wives no matter how liberal or unliberal the country is. At places its more common, at othe less, but thats worldwide tendency among narcissistic men. And in liberal countries its even more of an issue for such a monster cause woman and child have more rights and both parents are expected and obliged to support the child and not only financially.

Start with "he didn't want to buy alpine climbing shoes for her", "didn't want to pay for the cost of her going up", "didn't want to pay for her club membership", "didn't want to splurge on the second emergency kit", etc, etc.

But why he would pay for her climbing shoes or her anything? Unless she was financially dependent I tend to suspect that average young Austrian woman would have to be discouraged or talked off buying the necessary equipment herself rather than rely on her male significant other decide what purchase has to be made and what doesnt.
And essentially no possibility makes him look good here:
- if she had her own money and could afford everything that was reasonably needed - why havent he insisted on her buying that?
- if she already had the right gear but decided to go with snowboarding boots - why he agreed on that?
- if she couldnt afford gear and insurance by herself - why would he insist on going for that climb?
None of these make him look good. All scream negligence.

 

[RedHaus]

Had he just answered the follow up calls, his mistakes and this death would have been treated as an accident and maybe a lesson on being more prepared, but there would not be charges imo.

RSBM
And as you also stated, if TP had made repeated phone calls to rescue after his 12:35am (thank you, @ItalyReader for the typo correction!) return call, then we also would not be sleuthing this case.

If I had been TP and had a phone with battery power and cell service, I would have been calling every 10 minutes asking where rescue was. I would NOT have made one call and waited 1.5 hours, and then decide to leave my partner.

iMO.

 

[beubeubeu]

Hanlon’s Razor says "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."

And in da hood experience shows that most people's problems are a direct consequence of underestimating how vile other people can be even in circumstances where there is no easily foreseen gain for them.

The position taken fabricates a villain where there is likely just an enthusiast with more skills than their companion. I feel that the reality is probably not a calculated "assault by nature" or a "savior complex," but rather a failure of awareness in the midst of an inherently dangerous adventure. The more able and experienced mountain climber probably wasn’t trying to hurt their less experienced companion on purpose; they simply overestimated the companion's ability and underestimated the terrain and weather. The authorities seem to be criminalizing what was probably just poor judgment—unless the authorities have more evidence that we don’t know about.

Stupid people able to go for something as extreme as this at the age of 36 or 39 years have no shortage of receipts that can deliver solid amount of circumstantial evidence supporting likely absence of ill will but presence of recklessness and irresponsibility.
Does he have that?
If yes, then that can explain why then went there in the first place, why they started so late, why "winter climb" was done in the weatherwise harshest possible time during the whole year and why he didnt saw anything super wrong with her not having more appropriate footwear.

There are 4 yo children who were able to figure out that they have to call emergency cause mommy/daddy/granny fell and isnt moving but adult man fails to be aware that it may be good idea to try call for help right away while climbing THAT for last 12 to 15 hours,

at night, in freezing cold, wind blowing and having his girlfriend unable to move?
Unless it happened differently that it is presented - if he genuinely couldnt figure that out, then he should be forever banned from climbing and put into protective custody before he will bring more harm to others and himself.
Cause if that was genuinely just "stupidity", then it 100% will happen again and it 100% happened before.

 

[charminglane]

He never got out the space blankets.
Did he ever try to lay on top of her to keep her warm?
He has not made that claim that I have read--that he even tried.

 

[beubeubeu]

If I had been TP and had a phone with battery power and cell service, I would have been calling every 10 minutes asking where rescue was. I would NOT have made one call and waited 1.5 hours, and then decide to leave my partner.

iMO.

To be fair... if he ended up sure that they took his call for help then he may not think that repeating that call is necessary. Its not like vast majority of people keeps calling ambulance or cops after calling once - some do, others are freaking out while waiting but arent trying to call again for quite a bit under assumption that the help is coming but with some reason delayed and calling again may even delay it further.
So this part for me is kinda handsight 20/20.
Same thing with not calling again between deciding to climb the peak and descend - wind could be too loud to even try and he may be fearing of dropping the phone in process. So that may be understandable to me... at parts.

BUT why not call second time before leaving her?
Why not keep checking that phone for updates?
If the connection was bad, then how sure could he be that they know where they are and arent trying to reach him again and specify that?
Having two possibilities: belief that the help is coming or that its not.
With the belief that they were notified - why not call again and ask where they are? How theyre coming? From where they will be coming? If he wasnt well familiar with the mountain he wouldnt know what ways of rescue they have available. Could as well be dropping climbers by heli somewhere or driving up in a car with chains with two-three hours of climb before they'll reach them. Why not even try to ask where they are and when they may be expected to come? From which side they will come?
With the belief that omg, maybe they didnt understood/heard me well when I called - why not try again upon that scary conclusion? Why not at least check the phone at all for three hours?

Maybe Im making too many assumptions but tragedies in mountains happen, if the investigations are mandatory in case of each fatality and it rarely ever happens that any climber gets charged (I fail to find anything smiliar recently) then they arent charging left ad right for anything even remotely suspicious and - I assume - almost each time they are able to conclude the reason why things happened as they happened and that surviving climber/s are not to consider responsible. Yet here they cant.
So they have to have something serious, right? If not then what? Theyre revictimizing grieving boyfriend to make a point and scare others from even trying to do something like this to get better numbers in the future? To make as strong point as possible that going for a poorly planed winter climb in January wont go away without consequences? That leaving anyone behind without making as good use of available thermo insulating equipment as possible?

 

[beubeubeu]

All that, we are/were all adults and she/he was an adult so I/we...
Its all same (bad word to here) that comes up every time when a party or a trip ends up with someone going missing or/and dead. People are going somewhere TOGETHER, then theyre just like oh, whatever when they see an highely intoxicated guy getting ready to leave alone and dont care at all, dont try to stop him, dont try to call him a cab, nobody less intoxicated offers to go with him. Or we learn that they just freaking left the person somewhere without even letting them know that theyre leaving. And then oh my who could have ever predicted that something bad may happen.
No responsibility on them right? Cause not being a decent human being and a decent friend isnt a crime even if it costs somebodys life?
And maybe it shouldnt be punished but ostracized and looked down upon with such disgust that even the dumbest idiot will remember to not do that. Somehow we dont see stories about sober or mildly intoxicated people feeling like going for number two and doing so in the middle of dancefloor, straight from the bar stool or behind somebodys couch. That doesnt happen (may happen to unconscious, sick or highely intoxicated person who doesnt know whats going on around them at all but that state doesnt fit the profile of majority of these alleged friends or companions who are leaving their vulnerable friend or companion alone). Cause they know that they would have to clean that and became a looked down upon laughing stock for disrespecting everyone around them so much. What they allow themselves to do they do cause they feel that unpleasant consequences wont come.

Not many people climb but almost everyone attended at least one party during their lifetime. And who doesnt feel like, with all these "smiley face killer theory" scenarios that these adult guys who accompanied the victims on their last party or visit in a bar - that they should feel more responsible for their adult male companions as they became vulnerable? Everybody takes care of themselves applies on occasions where people are alone. If theyre not alone, some level of responsibility for others appear, is expected and should be expected.

 

[Cedars]

.

Possibly you are right, but it should not be so.

Men are biologically wired for fast, perhaps impulsive, responses (especially the ones with "slow version" of MAO, "the warrior gene"). So i always assume that for very young men, especially in peer groups, it is easier to get in trouble without planning it. But by 35, "nesting instinct" in men definitely picks up. So, one would expect "wiser" decisions for sure at this age and view Thomas Plamberger as a mindless egotist either way.

I would probably sooner see the pattern of "manipulative" relationship if a guy tried to pull such a stint with his inexperienced BF, btw. So obviously the same word 100% applies to Thomas/Kerstin. He manipulated her into something very dangerous and totally unknown to her.

Also: if the same situation happened to two male friends, I'd ask about the other guy's phone much sooner. "Hey, how come the rescuers did not call the other man's cellphone? Didn't Thomas leave it for alternative contact before getting up? He did not? Didn't he respect the autonomy of the other climber? Oh, the other guy had it on him and never answered? Since what time?" I am surprised that I didn't ask "what happened to Kerstin's phone?" sooner.

Thomas defense is "equal partnership", but the case reeks of utter deprivation of Kerstin's autonomy. What partnership? He drags an altitude-untrained woman on the highest peak of his country in winter night and leaves her there like a broken doll. (BTW, if any man hid a woman's cell phone in the house, he'd end up in jail for robbing her of the only way to call for help.)

It is interesting that i am thinking of her cell phone on page 5. I would have asked these questions much sooner if the deceased were a man.

I lived in a Rocky mountain town for 20 years and it was a standard joke/trope with smart women in their 30's, how they barely survived their early dating 'expeditions' with their guy charging ahead into danger/risk that they felt beyond their comfort. Some men never get beyond that and their partner stops going along.

This was an area where people died regularly from outdoor accidents: falling off cliffs, avalanches, skiing accidents, boating accidents, getting hypothermia because of a change in weather, crashing on a mountain bike, getting attacked by a bear or cougar, being hit by a falling tree in a windstorm, being hit by lightning, being hit by a falling rock: the potential for dying from one small mistake or bad timing was always there.

 

[georgiajean]

I dont. Either he was making sure she wont get out of this alive or info that we have is wrong and incomplete.

Oh yeah, right. thats the thing that all sources agreed on: that it was only her.
There is no mention of ski poles. If she also had ski poles, it may be as "innocent" as considering to split the splitboard and walk down in skis at parts of the trail where its possible and may be more convenient.
But we dont know how it looks like and how she thought it looks like/will look like then.

I would totally consider taking splitboard instead of skis (cause smaller and easy/possible to carry) if I expected that I might be too tired to walk reasonable pace on the not-very-steep way back. But Im no snowboarder or skiier, so no matter what I couldnt possibly consider actually skiing/snowboarding way down anything.


Yes, he is on the most popular app related to most popular sport smartwatches, but its set to private and other profiles are now deleted or also set to private.

I dont know, but I dont think so.
40-50 years ago we only had highely redacted stories from those who managed to came back and lots of controversies if one or another climber really succeeded or faked his summiting. Gear was horrible and much heavier, rescue possibilities were scarce. Also my impression is only as accurate as my random choice of books was (so not very, rather random) but 50 years ago and earlier majority of climbers were kinda rich elite so there was also a social factor to it.
Now theoretically if someone is in ultra great physical shape and REALLY wants to climb Mount Everest, they can save every penny, sell everything, ask for donations, get bit of sponsorship maybe and if theyre really persistent they can. In 1975 much much much lower chances of that, in some countries essentially no chance.
(...)
Waters down to: I think thats combination of many factors, "numbers" being just one of them.

Im not going back to the articles, but I stumbled on almost exact same thing in German

View attachment 630350
If it was indeed 10:30PM or 10:50PM that they were "still climbing" then why anyone was trying to call them? It may be stressfull to see climbers that time of night but hardly enough to search for their car, number and consider rescue mission if theyre still climbing.

Anyways.

Who in however right or wrong mind would even agree to go there with someone wearing snowboarding boots?
Theyre not that great with longtime cold insulation, not particularly waterproof and theyre horrible, painful to walk long distances.

Thank you for posting this video! I think this is the way that the man climbed down. Do you know? And this was not in winter.... Yikes!

 

[georgiajean]

This is even better, most detailed overview.

And this guy is skiing way down...

Seeing these videos from winter climbs ratchets up the concern of this event. How on earth did they decide to do this hike? That is a hard hike no matter the conditions, but mountain climbing in ice/snow is an entirely different beast. Insane to have taken her up there/for her to have continued on, with her equipment. Thank you beubeubeu for the videos. Very important to watch at least part of them.

 

[georgiajean]

Map of the two routes up Grossglockner. https://th.bing.com/th/id/R.c84b0f513a8b7a43175eea2fab629082?rik=fr5p1NxoMRDsjQ&riu=http://www.summitpost.org/images/original/837127.jpg&ehk=nXr+zslviyc1l9jIod54ul1N35MX+P+I0EXSMWHzHpY=&risl=&pid=ImgRaw&r=0

From this source, Climber Faces Homicide Charges After His Partner Dies. When Does a Bad Decision Become a Crime?
"They began their climb at 6:45 a.m, attempting to summit the peak via its Southwest Ridge, known as the Stüdlgrat, which roughly goes at UIAA III-IV (5.4). They planned to return via the slightly easier normal route, which descends to the southeast over Austria’s third-highest peak, Kleinglockner (3,770m/12,370ft) passing a mountain hut, the Erzherzog Johann, at 3,450m (11,319ft)."

 

[RedHaus]

Thank you for posting this video! I think this is the way that the man climbed down. Do you know? And this was not in winter.... Yikes!

My guess is it is the side that TP descended between 2 and 3:30am. I say that because apparently his aim was the hut in the video.

And here is the climber's description below his video, which I found enlightening. He accomplished this accent and descent on the "normal route" as he says, in about 6 hours. And it clearly is straightforward but a somewhat technical climb requiring crampons!

Six hours, folks, for this fellow to go up and down. It was nearly 21 hours (ascending the other side, Studlgrat ridge) between when TP and KG started their climb (6:45am) and when TP finally called for help for KG at 3:30am.

So to me, this video, sheds even more light on how terribly failed their climb was. It should have been aborted by lunch time!

23/9/23: "Solo climbing Austria's highest mountain Grossglockner via the normal route. I woke up at 4 o'clock in the Lucknerhaus parking and started my hike towards the Erzherzog Johann Hütte. In the distance, I saw hoards of climbers heading towards the Studlgrat ridge, but lucky for me the normal route was almost completely empty which was a huge surprise considering the nice weather and good conditions. The day passed by really quickly and I was back at the car before lunch ..." [bolded by me]

 

[ItalyReader]

Seeing these videos from winter climbs ratchets up the concern of this event. How on earth did they decide to do this hike? That is a hard hike no matter the conditions, but mountain climbing in ice/snow is an entirely different beast. Insane to have taken her up there/for her to have continued on, with her equipment. Thank you beubeubeu for the videos. Very important to watch at least part of them.

And these were climbs during the day - after dark fell it would have become another beast entirely.

Also it does not look ski-able / snowboardable but maybe that was lower down

 

[georgiajean]

This is a good summary of the routes and who should attempt them.

Do you need a mountain guide for the Großglockner?​

Climbing the Großglockner without a mountain guide is not recommended. Even experienced mountaineers should book a guided tour to minimize the risk.

Not only the partly adventurous passages but also the rapid weather changes require the knowledge of a local mountain guide.

Normal Route:

Requirements and equipment

Mountain experience, climbing skills, and good fitness are prerequisites. You also need comprehensive climbing and glacier equipment

Studlegrat Route:

Requirements and equipment

climbing experience, good acclimatization, excellent fitness, surefootedness, high-quality mountaineering equipment

 

[georgiajean]

And these were climbs during the day - after dark fell it would have become another beast entirely.

Also it does not look ski-able / snowboardable but maybe that was lower down

The video posted above by Beubeubeu shows them skiing across the glacial field once they get down from the rocks. So I can see why that would be interesting to them. But they also used their skiis on the way UP, and then left them at the end of the snow field before the final rock ascent. It sounds like they were climbing up the hard climb on the other side, her hauling the skiis on her back. I may be misreading what I am reading, of course.

 

[Charlot123]

I still dont. The only info about her devices is that they were analyzed by investigators along with his. Plural sport watch, plural smartphone. No mention of her doing anything with her smartphone in any source or being called - so either she didnt have it with her or she wasnt able to use it at all.
Otherwise it would be like... why charge him if she also had her phone on her, also was called or - to the very least some activity was detected? That would very much support his claim that it might be their decision to not attempt any calls for help till some point cause they thought something.
But thats certainly way too many unsupported assumptions.

First, lack of activity on her phone would prove that she started deteriorating earlier rather than later.

Then, you too mentioned lack of movement from 8:50 to 10:30 from the webcams. Either she developed severe mountain sickness earlier than he said, or she stated panicking or got frostbitten at 8:50 already. Now, having seen the films about this mountain, I understood that I’d definitely have a panic attack there on the glacier and after nightfall. Maybe she did, too? (Night is the time of visual disorientation for everyone.) But why then didn’t she use her phone to call 911? Even push buttons to signal SOS? At 8:50 she was probably still alive. So I wonder if he prevented her from using the cellphone or, sadly, that she deteriorated much earlier, not after 10:30 but at 8:50 pm or such.

What do you mean by liberal country?
No matter if she was pregnant or not, narcissistic men are murdering their pregnant girlfriends and wives no matter how liberal or unliberal the country is. At places its more common, at othe less, but thats worldwide tendency among narcissistic men. And in liberal countries its even more of an issue for such a monster cause woman and child have more rights and both parents are expected and obliged to support the child and not only financially.

Just because if he says “I don’t want to have a child or pay childcare”, she has a decent window to terminate in Austria. If she refuses to do so and he says, “I am out of it then”, she’d probably not go mountain climbing with him after that. I honestly doubt she was pregnant.

But why he would pay for her climbing shoes or her anything? Unless she was financially dependent I tend to suspect that average young Austrian woman would have to be discouraged or talked off buying the necessary equipment herself rather than rely on her male significant other decide what purchase has to be made and what doesnt.
And essentially no possibility makes him look good here:
- if she had her own money and could afford everything that was reasonably needed - why havent he insisted on her buying that?
- if she already had the right gear but decided to go with snowboarding boots - why he agreed on that?
- if she couldnt afford gear and insurance by herself - why would he insist on going for that climb?
None of these make him look good. All scream negligence.

We don’t know their dynamics. Were they living together? Did they have a common budget? Was he counting every euro?
And this I can imagine. I have seen the strangest situations occurring due to guys’ avarice.