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

[planet]

That comment makes a ridiculous point IMO.

So the reason why he should be seen as inexperienced climber (against the judgement of people who are asked for their judgement in coverages of this case) and NOT ill-willed with all his actions is cause... he made so many "mistakes" he just had to be severely inexperienced to make so many mistakes?
Sure hell yeah, but that requires the assumption that there were all, indeed, honest mistakes. And thats not the point basically everyone who feels otherwise is making cause thats not the point of the discussions caused by this specific chain of events.

With a different discussion, where the main question would be: should people be held legally accountable for the mistakes they do while climbing with others that leads to fatalities?
I bet most people's opinion on that would be something like:
a) yes, to a degree, but if that mistake was something that couldnt be foreseen by the person as fatal then maybe not...
b) no, cause many people make mistakes and they dont want to cause harm to others, they just dont know better (at that point) so unless its...
But what reality has to do with this question?
Reality is that mistakes are made, people die, sometimes people die as a result of these mistakes, but there is no long list of people charged or sentenced for such climbing mistakes that led to fatalities. You have to dig through decades to find one or two examples.

And how its even appropriate to try to redirect the discussion from what happened on Gross on the 18th to 19th January 2025 to THAT question?
How sentencing Thomas could influence cases of other people who made like one, two or three mistakes from his long list of "mistakes"?
Like for example:
- agreeing to go with a companion that doesnt have the most appropriate gear/clothing,
- starting an hour or two too late,
- pushing forward despite of the sundown coming soon
OR
- not calling for rescue at, whats later deemed as the most appropriate moment to do so,
- not responding or picking up calls from rescue team while on the mountain,
- leaving an injured companion behind after waiting for the rescue for 1,5 hours and facing weather going consistently worse.

Mediocre lawyer can then say oh, your honor... and provide reasonable, probable and understandable scenario, or twenty possible scenarios of how client could totally not foresee the fatal possible consequences of that and 90% (or likely more) will feel like "yes, that sounds probable".

There is a reason why it doesnt apply here.
There is a reason why people are able to come up with explanations only as long as theyre relying on very very very basic summary of the events or as theyre blantly ignoring the totality of the alleged mistakes and completely dismiss what people like Peter Suntinger, Josef Kunzer, Peter Habeler, Josef Schnell say about it with their decades of experience with climbing, climbing Grossglocker AND climbers on Grossglockner.
People are making bad decisions daily. I tend to assume that nobody is more exposed for vide range of, and long list of daily provided examples of kinds of mistakes and bad decisions people do while climbing Grossglockner itself and in wider Grossglockner area. And for these ALL people asked for their insight about what could happen in this case and what could cause such an unheard of string of unfortunate decisions it all seem to be close to "umm, I dont really get it".

And Thomas has his innocent until proven guilty shield. It was not taken away from him. Theyre talking like they do, cause theyre keeping the benefit of the doubt for him strong.
I dont recall mountain guides and rescuers talking like that about anyone. Ever. What seems to be a fatal string of events, mixture of bad decisions and harsh weather causes people to want use the spotlight to make emphasis on general safety, which is IMO in the best interest of everybody.
But here, also IMO, but I strongly suspect that it may be in their opinions also, that it is in the best interest of everybody to take note, that there is a serious danger in believing that there is no limit on the amount of honest not-ill will mistakes that lead to somebodys death that could and should be safely seen as mistakes. He crossed that line. And his falsely belittled climbing experience doesnt change anything, cause (even if it was true, which it isnt) they werent just climbing "mistakes" that he did, he went against very basic human reasoning.
And thats proved by reasoning by all the other people who climbed pretty much anything ever. As its pretty freaking hard to find anything even remotely similar without jumping straight on K2 or to climbin reality from 1925.

Unfortunately, this may be a misunderstanding of what I was doing. This was a random screenshot I posted to help folks know they'd landed on the right place. It had no particular significance.

 

[Ghostwheel]

From the tome @georgiajean just posted. This is for @Ghostwheel:

'Update from January 23, 2025: A mountain rescuer reports to the ORF (Austrian Broadcasting Corporation).​

Toni Riepler, head of operations for the Kals mountain rescue team, recounted the events of the night in an interview with ORF. He emphasized the importance of not jumping to conclusions, as the climbers were in an exceptional situation. The two individuals had a rescue blanket and bivouac sack with them on the mountain, but they were not used." [emphasis by me]

Thank you, I have seen this and it only says what was not deployed. It doesn't mean that there wasn't something deployed that went missing, it only means these items were found in someone's pack. And once again this makes zero sense to me. Two people one bivy, one blanket? Each person is responsible for themselves. There should have been a minimum of two blankets (one each) and a minimum of either 2 bivys or at the very least a double bivy (I don't know if what was not deployed was single or double) taken on this trip.

So I'm just going to have to wait. If Thomas says he didn't deploy anything or he "forgot", that will speak volumes. If nothing was deployed and that was a single bivy sack, then they truly were not prepared.

I appreciate the post.

 

[beubeubeu]

Thank you, I have seen this and it only says what was not deployed. It doesn't mean that there wasn't something deployed that went missing, it only means these items were found in someone's pack. And once again this makes zero sense to me. Two people one bivy, one blanket? Each person is responsible for themselves. There should have been a minimum of two blankets (one each) and a minimum of either 2 bivys or at the very least a double bivy (I don't know if what was not deployed was single or double) taken on this trip.

So I'm just going to have to wait. If Thomas says he didn't deploy anything or he "forgot", that will speak volumes. If nothing was deployed and that was a single bivy sack, then they truly were not prepared.

I appreciate the post.

What are you saying exactly? Sounds fascinating in context of group rope-climbing.
So if she had that blanket and bivvy but got so exhausted she wasnt able to wrap herself in it he couldnt be expected to help her with that?
Or that its totally justified to take these items from the injured person as theyre not able to protect themselves with it anyway?
Or are you "just" saying that in case he had these thermo blankets and bivvy (multiple blankets were mentioned) in his backpack then they were reserved for his personal use and no reason to expect he would use such precious possessions on anyone even if he doesnt need them all or any of them as somebody elses facing death?

 

[Ghostwheel]

What are you saying exactly? Sounds fascinating in context of group rope-climbing.
So if she had that blanket and bivvy but got so exhausted she wasnt able to wrap herself in it he couldnt be expected to help her with that?
Or that its totally justified to take these items from the injured person as theyre not able to protect themselves with it anyway?
Or are you "just" saying that in case he had these thermo blankets and bivvy (multiple blankets were mentioned) in his backpack then they were reserved for his personal use and no reason to expect he would use such precious possessions on anyone even if he doesnt need them all or any of them as somebody elses facing death?

I am saying if there was not enough emergency equipment for each person to use, then they were not prepared. When it comes to survival gear,, there should be enough for each individual, even if it's a double bivy for two. End of statement there, JMO based on many years of backpacking, not Alpine related. The report is that a bivy was found, no report on if it was a single or double.

I am also saying if there were these items in a pack, there is nothing stating there could not possibly have been MORE than only these items in BOTH packs at some point. This is not confirmed anywhere.

If they started with not enough, that is negligent. Anyone who has been in rough and dangerous terrain had better know that.. If they had enough, and some got deployed and went missing, not the same thing. To me.

Has ZERO to do with whether anyone would use what you refer to as precious possessions.
If he left her and deployed nothing and left her with nothing, 100% on him.
If he left her with those items and she said she'd deploy them, but could not, partially on him.
If he deployed her emergency gear and it went missing for reasons we don't know, and returned with his own, not on him.
If he deployed HIS emergency gear and it went missing, and what was found was in her pack, not on him.
If he "forgot" to deploy anything, might be on him depending on his condition at the time.

All I keep seeing is reports that these items "they" had were not deployed. Not that he had those items when he returned. And at this point, he's not shouting anything about anything until his trial, IMO, so we won't hear the actual facts of what was found where or his whole interpretation of his view of the events until then.

Can I see where he could have been a total bozo and completely negligent in this whole mess? Yes. Could I make a case for an elaborate plan to "accidentally" kill his partner on the climb? Sure. But do I still have questions, based on my own experience where everyone is responsible for their own safety, also yes. I'd just like full answers before I convict someone based on translated articles that sometimes contradict each other as new information came out. JMO. There are a lot of layers that may lead to exactly 100% his fault because she had no agency in this. Or maybe not 100% his fault but half his fault. Or some other mix.

I will wait for the trial.

 

[Charlot123]

Besides the chain of mistakes or mis-steps ending getting stuck close to the peak of Grossglockner, something that can be proven (when they started, Kerstin being dressed lightly, not turning back at breakfast point and many others), there is an aspect that exists and while it is hard to prove, it is serious:

I don’t know what is the legal term for:

Being guilty due to failure to provide assistance.

This bivouac and thermal blankets that she didn’t have are morally damning for Thomas. I don’t know if legally. But morally, sure.

His version is: the situation was hopeless. So he went for help. And then he blames the rescue police for not helping.

But how it looks IRL: well, let us imagine she asks him to go for help. He takes all warm things and off he goes. In his mind, Thomas has written Kerstin off. But, he may need them.

And he arrives. His horrible story of himself being frostbitten, sorry, I don’t believe. (This is in the first statement of his lawyer).

I don’t know if there were signs of life of Kerstin early in the morning, or it was a mistake. But if she were alive early and dead when the rescuers reached her…could that blanket or bivouac have made a difference between life and death?

Kerstin may have made own mistake. Or, she was carrying the split board and decided that they’d share the bivouac, if anything. She never went to that mountain. She was inexperienced.

But Thomas left her. What that choice meant for her we know from Peter S, the mountain guide. Thomas also understood what that choice meant for her. Him not leaving the bivouac and not covering her with the blanket illustrates it.

I think he didn’t want to spend the time and the energy that he wanted to use for summiting on covering her or setting up the bivouac. JMO.

 

[acutename]

Are you entertaining some scenario that has barely anything to do with this story or what?

This is what I was responding to and I quoted just part of it assuming that we are talking about this route on this mountain in January not other time, place and weather.

Lets say it would happen exactly this way.
He told her snow boots and split board bad. = The most likely reason why to say such a thing would be cause he KNEW that splitboard and snow boots are bad idea there.
She said she's gonna do it anyway. = He might figure that okay, whatever, her decision. It would already be pretty bad. May happen but responsible, experienced hiker, not to mention climber should not be up for going with someone whos from the beginning insisting on commiting to bad decisions. That may be fateful with mushroom hunting, not to mention climbing III+ routes in Alps.
Then she was getting tired or close to exhaustion, she figured she'd just "push through it" and he didn't notice until it was too late. = And this is already impossible. Cause of the time. Sun on the sky and later lack of it would make it impossible for him to NOT NOTICE that she was tired and exhausted. Cause that route is to make in 3-4 hours in Summer. 4-6 in Winter. In that time they barely made it half that distance and it was already getting dark after "first" three. You wont find a mountain guide who will say that it would be possible to not notice that something is wrong there, period.

If someone insists they will continue without the other person, what are the choices?
A) Keep going against the other person's better judgement (bad).
B) Refuse to go anyway: Either youre turning back with me right now or you indeed continue alone cause Im not risking my own and your safety (also bad but there is a chance that it will make them change their mind).
C) Inform the person that you are notifying mountain police / rescue services about the situation (that also offers some chance to change their mind).
D) If theyre not changin their mind, then a call should be made. That doesnt mean fully blown rescue mission will blow up in 5 minutes. But makes the most experienced and best informed people aware of the situation. They may offer some tips, tell what to do, try to contact the other person or judge that it sounds like the other person may be going trough some sort of medical emergency and is unable to make a conscious decision at the moment and decide to send someone with assistance or decide on going on fully blown rescue mission as they know that for example big storm is coming.

And D is what youre supposed to be doing after trying A, B and C. Or even jumping straight to D if things are moving fast.
Physical attempt at stopping someone is not what I would deem as the right course of action.

Would be a different story if he had no cell phone, no sportswatch, no phone reception and no way of notifying anyone, but we dont have a reason to entertain these scenarios in context of this case cause they dont apply here.

He's not charged cause of the shoes. Her shoes are just one element of it.

Yes we can know and we do know cause that mountain is not one to climb after dark in Winter. People are not doing that and you can check it. Years of surveillance to look at. Or you can theorize that some do but with no headlamps, just for kicks and giggles. Cant rule that out.

If you left someone wrapped in three blankets at mountain thats covered by several cams, having mountain police monitoring the situation with access to several meteorological points monitoring weather and winds chances that these blankets will mysteriously disappear are low. Could happen, sure. What would be your reasoning to not scream to everyone who would listen that you covered the person with blankets WHERE ARE THESE?! HOW ON EARTH COULD THAT HAPPEN?
That would be pretty good thing to mention if you were facing investigation, wouldnt it? He knew that investigation will happen the moment he learned that she died.

the way the trail looks- steep, rocky and the supposed weather- lots of wind, snow, I do not understand where her body was. It looks like it would fall off the trail. Was she wedged into some rocks? Really curious about this.

 

[RedHaus]

the way the trail looks- steep, rocky and the supposed weather- lots of wind, snow, I do not understand where her body was. It looks like it would fall off the trail. Was she wedged into some rocks? Really curious about this.

It was described in an article posted here early on, maybe in the climb.com article, that KG was found on a snow ramp (or the trail section called the Snow Ramps - BeuBeuBeu believes its the former).

And numerous reports have stated KG was left out in the open. I believe one of the prosecution's charge of 9 critical errors was that TP did not move KG to the protection of rocks out of the wind before he left her at 2:00am. Some here wonder if that is because KG was already gone.

 

[acutename]

It was described in an article posted here early on, maybe in the climb.com article, that KG was found on a snow ramp (or the trail section called the Snow Ramps - BeuBeuBeu believes its the former).

And numerous reports have stated KG was left out in the open. I believe one of the prosecution's charge of 9 critical errors was that TP did not move KG to the protection of rocks out of the wind before he left her at 2:00am. Some here wonder if that is because KG was already gone.

OK, thanks, I do recall the photos of the snow ramps- seemed narrow and precarious but maybe her clothing froze to the surface and kept her "anchored."

 

[beubeubeu]

I don’t know what is the legal term for:

Being guilty due to failure to provide assistance.

This bivouac and thermal blankets that she didn’t have are morally damning for Thomas. I don’t know if legally. But morally, sure.

Legally also. It is a crime to have the ability to secure an injured person and not do that. He was able to keep climbing for hours and didn't require medical attention as he got to Adlershutte. No moral or mental gymnastic is gonna go around that.
If he covered her with something but did it so poorly it got taken away by wind it still would count as criminal neglect.
Even more so, considering the totality of his actions he could still be charged if he put her in bivvy, left her and if it was proven she got it off her while left alone. Unless hed reasonably do whatever he could and be expected to do to call for help. These standards are kept higher than whatever fits people with mentality of a kayman.

The last two scenarios with him covering her but her ending up unprotected unlikely would lead to anything but suspended sentence.
Unless investigation would show that he kept doing what he possibly could and could be reasonably expected to try with calling for help and left at the last resort. Reasonably he was expected to recognize the danger of the situation and start these attempts as they ended up halfway that mountain at sundown.

 

[beubeubeu]

OK, thanks, I do recall the photos of the snow ramps- seemed narrow and precarious but maybe her clothing froze to the surface and kept her "anchored."

That ramp 50m below the summit is steep, few feet wide as it gets covered with snow, exposed to wind but there are stones on at least one or both sides.

 

[georgiajean]

After the finds from today, and getting a better sense of the prosecutions view of what happened, this is what I think.

TP had a responsibility to make decisions, but he abdicated this responsibility, saying they were equals and he bore no responsibility even though he knew that mountain, knew that route, and knew of Kerstin's experience.

Kerstin was not prepared, not properly equipped, and facing this mountain despite some type of illness/respiratory issue that she used Ibuprofen for. I think she wanted to do this climb. It was a rite of passage for TP's girlfriends. Except he raised the bar each time.

 

[georgiajean]

• Any death on a mountain in Austria (as well as other European countries) is investigated. It is standard protocol.
• Very few lead to actual charges.
• From the outset, SAR (Search and Rescue), Police, and mountain experts said that it was important to let the investigation run its course and not jump to conclusions. But they also said there were things that just didn't make sense, and wondered about.
• In June/July, the investigation ground to a halt because the investigation and the defendant (TP) had different stories and TP was accusing the SAR/Police of botching the rescue.
• On July 31, all materials gathered in the investigation were turned over to an alpine investigation expert who was tasked with looking over the evidence thoroughly, to determine if gross negligence was evident.
• I early December, the Alpine expert's investigation was complete, and charges were brought against TP. Again, THIS IS RARE! If they are bringing charges against him and taking it to trial in Feb, they found gross negligence.
• Is it possible that the prosecution/SAR/police are circling the wagons to protect themselves against TP's accusations that they botched the rescue? Well, corruption exists in the world. But I know no circumstance where SAR will knowingly turn away from people in need. Maybe the communication wasn't clear. And TP's lawyer is an expert defendant attack dog who is going to do whatever he can to create doubt. It sounds like the communication tree is the most likely area for doubt, UNLESS there are recordings. I hope there are, for justice's sake. And I hope there are LOTS of witnesses to testify.

Update from 31 July 2025 | New expert report to bring clarity​

The investigations are stuck, it's statement against statement. Therefore, the competent court has commissioned an alpine-technical report. This should finally clarify whether the partner and touring partner of the deceased 33-year-old was complicit in her death through his actions on the day of the accident.
The responsible public prosecutor's office in Innsbruck had been investigating the 36-year-old from Salzburg since January on suspicion of grossly negligent homicide. In particular, the (too late?) Activating the rescue chain has so far been a point of contention between the accused and the rescuers. During the last few months, the public prosecutor had meticulously reconstructed the sequence of events on the day of the accident.

According to the ORF report, the alpine police officers on duty as well as mountain rescue and helicopter crew were questioned and the recordings of the surrounding webcams were evaluated. In addition, and this is likely to be decisive for the partly contradictory statements, an evaluation of all telephone recordings (call logs, etc.) of the night took place. The collected mountain of files is now to be handed over to an expert, who is to finally clarify the question of possible misconduct.
According to a statement from the public prosecutor's office, the result is expected in the coming weeks. On the basis of the result, it will be decided whether charges will be brought against the 36-year-old or whether the proceedings will be discontinued.

Alpinistin stirbt am Großglockner: Gutachten soll Klarheit bringen

 

[Little Jack]

I just have a feeling he told her to keep moving to stay warm, kept pushing her until she was completely unresponsive at which point he freaked out and ran away.

 

[georgiajean]

I just have a feeling he told her to keep moving to stay warm, kept pushing her until she was completely unresponsive at which point he freaked out and ran away.

I also think that in his cold-impacted mind, he had reached out for help to SAR, and when he was told they couldn't come, he tried to get her to go, and then left to "get help." It is possible he just wasn't making good decisions at that point, but was able to still climb up to the peak and then down to the Hutte where he called. He didn't have the wherewhithall to protect her with emergency gear and placement in more sheltered location, but could climb down the mountain in the dark, cold, and wind.

Even if the above is true, he make 8 other mistakes, at minimum, that led to the ultimate decision to leave her without protection.

 

[LadyL]

After the finds from today, and getting a better sense of the prosecutions view of what happened, this is what I think.

TP had a responsibility to make decisions, but he abdicated this responsibility, saying they were equals and he bore no responsibility even though he knew that mountain, knew that route, and knew of Kerstin's experience.

Kerstin was not prepared, not properly equipped, and facing this mountain despite some type of illness/respiratory issue that she used Ibuprofen for. I think she wanted to do this climb. It was a rite of passage for TP's girlfriends. Except he raised the bar each time.

admittedly I'm having trouble catching up with the holidays and all but ... what finds?

 

[georgiajean]

admittedly I'm having trouble catching up with the holidays and all but ... what finds?

There were several videos and articles posted upthread with further details and information about things. There are many posts with theories about things. So when you have time, go back a couple pages.

 

[Occam's Zebra]

He had mountain hiking/climbing experience - he should not have allowed her to climb in snowboard boots, unless he was planning for something to happen to her (or at least indifferent to whether she made it off the mountain). Do people actually snowboard on this mountain? Even if she could have snowboarded at some point, how would the two of them find one another again? It makes zero sense. It's almost as if he encouraged her to wear the boots and bring the board, making her believe she could get a run or two in while they were hiking. And since she had no experience, this wouldn't necessarily seem odd to her...

 

[georgiajean]

He had mountain hiking/climbing experience - he should not have allowed her to climb in snowboard boots, unless he was planning for something to happen to her (or at least indifferent to whether she made it off the mountain). Do people actually snowboard on this mountain? Even if she could have snowboarded at some point, how would the two of them find one another again? It makes zero sense. It's almost as if he encouraged her to wear the boots and bring the board, making her believe she could get a run or two in while they were hiking. And since she had no experience, this wouldn't necessarily seem odd to her...

People commonly climb up and ski down the other side once they get to the glacier fields. TP had done this numerous times, climbing up the Studlgrat ridge with skis on his back and then climbing down to the glacier field. This is the very difficult way. Most people take the normal route, ski across the glacier, leave skis there, climb up and then back down, retrieve skis, ski back. So their "plan" was to climb up and ski/snowboard down.

 

[Little Jack]

People commonly climb up and ski down the other side once they get to the glacier fields. TP had done this numerous times, climbing up the Studlgrat ridge with skis on his back and then climbing down to the glacier field. This is the very difficult way. Most people take the normal route, ski across the glacier, leave skis there, climb up and then back down, retrieve skis, ski back. So their "plan" was to climb up and ski/snowboard down.

Correct me if im wrong but I thought he had neither skis nor snowboard? So was she going to ski away from him while he walked behind ? I dont understand this plan

 

[georgiajean]

Correct me if im wrong but I thought he had neither skis nor snowboard? So was she going to ski away from him while he walked behind ? I dont understand this plan

It has not been mentioned if he had skis or not.

There are photos of him climbing that same mountain with skis on his back, and it makes no sense for her to have her split board and for him to not have anything.
There has been an information block, set my law enforcement/court, since a few days after the incident, so there is much more to know that we won't know until trial.

My assumption is he had skis too.