Excellent recent local coverage with interviews. I downloaded German subtitles and autotranslated it to make it bit easier to digest.
That clears up so much.
What exactly happened on Austria's highest mountain, the Großglockner, on that bitterly cold night last January? A young woman from Salzburg died just meters below the summit, left alone
by her boyfriend, an experienced mountaineer.
He says he went to get help.
But now he has to answer for manslaughter by gross negligence in court.
He was allegedly unreachable for rescuers for hours and then descended alone in the middle of the night. His weak, completely exhausted girlfriend froze to death, and much remains a mystery. Fabian Schaffer investigates.
The
(?? gechiecht? - story?) is even mysterious because
he's not entirely honest. That's unheard of. Leaving a partner behind is a no-go. NO G O.
If I can't get a helicopter and it flies overhead and nothing happens, I don't know anything, that's pretty suspicious. The sum of these bad decisions ultimately led to this fatal accident. At least that's the accusation from the authorities.
At the beginning of the year, a young woman from Salzburg froze to death on the Großglockner. Her friend and companion now faces trial. He could face up to three years in prison. Why does the public prosecutor's office believe there is someone to blame for the 33-year-old's death?
In the early morning hours of January 18th, the two mountaineers set off from the municipality of Karls towards the Großglockner. And according to the public prosecutor's office, this is where the first mistakes occurred.
The authorities say they were about two hours too late.
Furthermore, the victim was wearing snowboard boots, completely unsuitable equipment for such a demanding mountain tour. "If we're talking about the planning," the prosecutor stated, "I have to say it was a complete miscalculation. It was a miscalculation in that they simply didn't consider the terrain. The slope is the (??), and that's difficult enough even in summer. Yes, it's grade III terrain. In winter, of course, there's the added snow. It might even be icy. The conditions are bad." Wind speeds of 74 km/h, temperatures of -8°C, resulting in a perceived cold of -20°C.
Shortly after 8 p.m., other climbers noticed the light on the ridge and raised the alarm. According to the public prosecutor's office, further progress was no longer possible at that point. The two climbers nevertheless did not make an emergency call. They also failed to send out any distress signals during a police helicopter overhead.
We were basically just waiting. We knew something was fishy, because that's just not how it works. If I can still get a helicopter, and it flies me, and they're not allowed to, I don't know, that's pretty suspicious for me.
We don't know what really happened, they can't tell me, but something's not right there.
That's the case, it's mysterious, that's because he's not completely silent, that's just not possible. If I'm out so late, then I have to be behind. Here in the municipality of Kals, everyone knows the Grossglockner like the back of their hand, and yet nobody here understands what happened on the mountain on the night of January 19th.
After midnight, the 33-year-old has to give up, completely exhausted. She can neither go forward nor back. Her partner calls the mountain police at that time.
Immediately afterwards, he puts his phone on silent, finally turns it off completely and no longer accepts any calls, according to the public prosecutor's office.
The sum of these,
uh, poor decisions ultimately led to this fatal accident. At least, that's the accusation from the public prosecutor's office.
"Gross negligent homicide" means that, uh, misconduct occurred which, in its totality, was clearly negligent, and this can be considered grounds for accusation simply because many smaller errors are made which, in total, can be classified as gross negligence.
Around 2 a.m., another fatal misconception is said to have occurred. The defendant left his girlfriend alone to descend to the Erzherzog Johannhütte mountain hut and get help. His route can be traced on webcam images. If you imagine yourself in the log, you'll see where your partner left. You really don't know how or why, or if they argued or, more likely, discussed things in the aftermath.
The defendant also allegedly failed to protect his partner from the cold and heat loss.
Leaving a partner behind is a no-go. You don't leave anyone behind, and him, I don't know what he was thinking, the poor devil, if I may say so, what he was thinking. Now I have to leave her there.
He still has the not-so-easy final ascent to the summit to do.
He has to take the normal winter route, which is a real challenge. Yes, if you can put it a bit bluntly, it's difficult, d
He has to go via the normal winter route with chains. Yes, if you may put it a bit in a roundabout way, it's difficult, then it's dark, right? He has to go to the Adlasruhe. So, it's quite an obscure story.
That is and that will remain. At 3:30 a.m., the defendant then made the emergency call. A helicopter rescue had to be called off due to strong winds.
The woman could not be recovered until 10:00 a.m., frozen to death alone 50 meters below the summit cross.
The defendant maintains it was an accident.
He then earnestly regrets that it happened this way. The prospect of the defense, however, is still to assume a tragic, fateful accident.
Such a charge is generally very rare, explains the lawyer and mountaineer Robert Walner.
A particularly common one is the so-called guide acting out of courtesy. We, as lawyers, also call it the de facto guide. This is the term used when someone voluntarily and explicitly takes over the leadership and when they are also significantly better qualified than the person being led. I can now remember a long time ago about the division of labor.
The Supreme Court in a landmark ruling regarding the 1984 Bitzbuin accident, established the criteria for when one speaks of such a de facto guide and then, in the Bitzbuin case, for the first time, ruled that the mountaineer is liable.
That was also a relatively extreme case. Back then, an experienced mountaineer was climbing th Bitzbuin in Vorarlberg with an inexperienced partner. The inexperienced climber is seriously injured, the tour guide is convicted. And even now, the court in Innsbruck is supposed to clarify what happened on the mountain. If I am a mountaineer, I have a great responsibility and that responsibility must be decided by the individual for themselves. You cannot be a court to say it happened this way or that way, because on the Grossglockner, under such conditions, it's difficult to make a decision, and you never know when human lives are at stake, how someone thinks and feels and then acts at all. There are simply situations up there that no one can change and cannot influence. That's the problematic thing about the mountain.
The main trial at the Innsbruck Regional Court is scheduled for February 19, 2026. Demand faces up to three years in prison. The presumption of innocence applies.
And here in my studio, I welcome Günther Kanutsch, head of the Salzburg Alpin Mountaineering School and for many years president of the Salzburg Mountain Guides Association.
Good evening, Mr. Kan.
Yes, good evening to you too, Mr. Kanutsch.
An indictment for gross negligent homicide. What were your first thoughts as an experienced mountain guide when you heard about it?
Well, it is, that was my first impression, a very complex case. So, there are a lot of individual decisions co-opting each other, some of which are quite astonishing.
Hmm. Indictments in such cases are rather rare. Um, would you say that in this case the facts are quite clear?
Well, anyone can make a mistake. So, even I, even mountain guides, colleagues, every mountaineer has made a mistake at some point. Small, or hopefully not a big one. But, uh, what's so striking here, uh, is, that a whole chain of apparent misjudgments preceded the tragic ending.
Mhm. Let's go through it. Um, according to the public prosecutor's office, the young woman from Salzburg was very poorly equipped, namely with, um, snowboard boots, with a splitboard. What does that mean when you're at over 3000 m altitude with such equipment in winter at sub-zero temperatures?
Yes, of course, the Stüdgrat in winter is absolutely a serious tour, not comparable to good conditions in summer. Uh, the day wasn't exactly a happy one either chosen because, as we learned, there was a strong storm, which of course made the whole thing considerably more difficult, but the equipment itself was, if I'm putting it cautiously, with the soft boots and the matching climbing boots, I would almost say not suitable crampons, uh, more than suboptimal, because soft boots are not comparable to the crampons with the ones my partner was using, the crampons were completely different, and these crampons for soft boots are therefore primarily suitable for climbing steep, icy slopes, but not for climbing mixed terrain. Experienced mountaineers then do a tour with short tours. In this case, the young woman from Salzburg had a splitboard with her, so a kind of snowboard.
What makes the difference here?
He might want to preface this by saying that the ascent of the Studelgrade is a winter ascent even without this extra luggage of the, uh, the tour and the splitports is already a challenge. But when I have that on my back up top, the whole thing becomes significantly heavier. Um, and that day there was strong wind or rather a storm, over 70 km/h, as we found out afterwards, and the wind, or rather the, but especially the splitboard, which is significantly wider even when disassembled than a (??), naturally offers an excellent surface area for wind or, in this case, a storm. Then it is sometimes really very, very difficult to climb, because it's very easy to lose your balance afterwards.
Yes.
And that, of course, takes a tremendous toll on your strength.
Many are wondering, and we heard Peter Habeller's* commentary on this (NO GO. NO GO was his commentary to it), why did the mountain guide, the experienced alpinist, leave his friend alone in the end?
How do you explain that?
Yes, it's not just inexplicable to me, so it remains probably whether one ever really knows what happened, that probably only he knows. But whether the truth will ever come to light, one can't judge, maybe at the trial, but it's inexplicable to me how one can leave someone behind, because we learn during mountain guide training, to leave a guest alone, and in this case there was a guest-client relationship, admittedly on a private level, but he was the experienced one, he was responsible for her and left her alone, and that is simply unacceptable. I can't leave someone alone on the mountain, especially not in this terrain under these conditions.
But does the law expect that on the mountain, the more experienced person assumes responsibility?
Yes, you're bringing that up now?
So, basically, many people are afraid of this.
Are you also liable on the mountain as a private individual?
Because the mountain is not a lawless space, that's quite clear. But, uh, it's like this: if I'm out today, even as a mountain guide, privately with people, I don't automatically have responsibility for these people. My responsibility only comes into effect once I go with these people who are with me into terrain where they wouldn't be able to manage on their own. Here, uh, there's a duty of care, and I also have to, and automatically then the responsibility for these people falls on me.
Um, now we saw in the report no distress signals to the helicopter, the cell phone on silent. Um, the young exhausted woman wasn't wrapped in a bivvy bag, nor in an avalanche blanket, or in a emergency blanket. If her companion had acted differently, the whole thing would have turned out differently, perhaps not with death?
Well, that's purely hypothetical. We can't answer the question, but what we can say is that the chances would have been significantly greater that she would have been probably already injured, but but at least survived. into a bivvy shelter that they would have had with them and if both of them could have potentially had space in it, ideally they would have had a two-person bivvy shelter with them so the person could cuddle up with them, let's say, and transfer their own heat to the other person. They would be protected from the wind, and the chances would have been significantly greater. And even if I only have a single bicycle shelter in conjunction with the aluminum sheet, which ensures that the heat doesn't radiate so much body heat, in combined with the windproof bivvy shelter, the situation then looks much more favorable for the person.
And why wasn't help called?
There was help. There was the helicopter that flew over the two of them. There were calls on their cell phones.
Why wasn't this help accepted?
We don't know, but it's really more than questionable um, why the help was basically refused and a short time later the partner was left alone, left unattended, and uh the companion tried to get help and left her alone and then she ultimately died. These two uh scales of events simply don't add up, and that is currently puzzling the media worldwide.
Mhm. Thank you very much for visiting the studio and for your analysis.
Thank you.
