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

[georgiajean]

Media release from Innsbruck Court. A beast to translate. I translated the parts I thought were important to see. file:///C:/Users/blueh/Downloads/Medieninfo_Urteil%20HV%20Gro%C3%9Fglockner_Schuldspruch.pdf

"2) For a penalty range of up to 3 years, a prison sentence of a total of 9 months was imposed. Part of this prison sentence amounting to 4 months was converted into a fine in accordance with § 43a para. 2 of the Criminal Code, the remaining part of the prison sentence of 5 months was suspended on a probation period of 3 years, the unconditional fine therefore amounts to 240 daily rates of €40 each, totaling €9,600."

3) In the conviction, it was assumed that • there was a factual leadership relationship with corresponding assumption of responsibility; • the tour was inadequately planned; • the tour was not aborted in time; • an emergency call was not made despite multiple opportunities; • only partially suitable equipment was provided by the defendant. the actual difficulty of the route in mixed rock-ice terrain was concealed or downplayed, and • the companion was led to believe that the summit and the Erzherzog-Johann Hut were reachable and that continuing was the only option. Kerstin G**, however, was unable to adequately assess the situation and respond due to insufficient experience

4) It was not accepted that: • the tour started 2 hours late, as the defendant could have expected a higher average speed at that time; • the accusation of carrying too little equipment, since the defendant did not carry any emergency equipment for himself, but could have used Kerstin G**'s equipment. • the use of the wrong belaying method (belaying from stand to stand instead of on the running rope), since the latter is taught in mountain guide training, but this belaying method is quite complex and could not reasonably be expected of the defendant considering the differentiated standard of care; • the allegation that the emergency call was placed not at 12:35 a.m. but only at 3:30 a.m. (he should have placed it much earlier anyway), as the court assumed that the defendant believed his description during the phone call at 12:35 a.m. would be sufficiently understood as an emergency call.

5) In mitigation of sentencing, the court took into account the defendant's previously unblemished record and the loss of his life partner; in addition, the public discussion on social media that was prejudicial to the defendant was considered.

 

[RedHaus]

Media release from Innsbruck Court. A beast to translate. I translated the parts I thought were important to see. file:///C:/Users/blueh/Downloads/Medieninfo_Urteil%20HV%20Gro%C3%9Fglockner_Schuldspruch.pdf

... in addition, the public discussion on social media that was prejudicial to the defendant was considered.

Now THAT makes my skin crawl. WTF.

 

[Charlot123]

And I bet he stashed it somewhere and went back to get it....

Probably posted it somewhere…

BTW, didn’t Kerstin have a GoPro? They are not super expensive. Where is hers?

 

[georgiajean]

Been reading Reddit threads to find articles. Found another "ticker" from the trial, which fills in many missing pieces from the Krone ticker. Bedingte Haft und Geldstrafe für Angeklagten im "Großglockner-Prozess"

It took me a while to figure out how to access ticker and get it translated, but then succeeded.
I have attached a pdf. It is a lot of text, like 46 pages.

 

[georgiajean]

Actual transcript of judge's questioning of Andrea B, the ex-gf.

Frau am Großglockner erfroren: Bergsteiger soll auch Ex-Freundin zurückgelassen haben

Innsbruck (Österreich) – Gemeinsam mit seiner Freundin Kerstin G. brach Thomas P. (37) zu einer Tour auf den Großglockner (3798 Meter) auf. Doch als ihre...

www.bild.de

On the evening of the trial – around 6:40 p.m. – Andrea B. finally testified herself. BILD records her statements from the courtroom.

Richter: "How conscientious was Thomas P. when preparing for the tour?"

Witness Andrea B.: "These were all tours that he had already gone on himself. Okay, we'll go now, they said. He's already taken care of it, but he tends to get grumpy."
Judge: "Was there a situation where he left you alone?"

Witness: "Yes, where we did the Glockner crossing. The mood was bad. We stayed overnight, I wanted to go straight down, he over the Stüdlhütte. He was grumpy, I was at the end of my strength. Apparently I was too slow for him, and suddenly he was gone. It was just the middle of the night, I was all alone, my headlamp went out, I was dizzy, I bawled and screamed. I was quite alone, he had gone to the Luckner hut. That was also our last mountain tour."

Richter: "I can well imagine that. Has there been a situation like this before?"

Witness: "Not to that extent, but there were things. If I was slow or clumsy, then he was grumpy, I shouldn't act like that. I had definitely said that I wanted to do that. I was already aware of what I was getting myself into."

Richter: "Was it ever a topic of conversation that he left her behind on the mountain?"

Witness: "There were people who said you should tell the police that."

 

[beubeubeu]

For starters, he chose a very bad day. It was cold winter. It may have started sunny, but past frühstückplatz, the wind was 74 km/hr. It is Gale Force.

https://www.hastings.gov.uk/content/weather-management/Beaufort_Wind_Scale.pdf

The temperature was -4 Farenheit or - 20 Celsius.

No, weather on the 18th was basically the best weather day in January.
Wind was not 74km/h. Gusts went up to about ~46 afternoon. 74 came later.
It was absolutely, totally 100% expected and predictable that:
a) weather WILL get rough later in the day,
b) as it will get rough it will only be getting rougher later.

Because the weather was actually somewhat decent, there were other climbers there. They hoped for the best and being able to summit before weather will go bad. Didnt happen so they turned back.

Experienced temp dropped to -20*C, but that was after sundown.

She couldnt have a good idea HOW that kind of weather and these kind of winds feel up the mountain on a route thats so exposed. She was never in situation like that.

He had great idea about it, he experienced it many times before.

This is where he should have, like any normal person, said, “tough luck. Let us start tomorrow. Ughm, and let’s let you proper shoes”.

This is where the warning stands essentially saying that it is the point of no return, so what was going on the guy’s head we have no idea. But surely anyone has that much brain?

Point of no return implies that turning back isnt possible. Which is not the case.
Saying it like that gives perception that he had no other choice but to keep pushing the climb up cause "no return".

That sign warns that going further up is only getting worse and takes more time. And that neither summiting and safely descending via normal route or going back likely wont be possible with sunlight if climbing up to that point took more than estimated ~2 hours from Studlgrat entrance/ ~3 hours from Studlhutte.

Plus, Kerstin was having a viral pneumonia and took Ibuprofen. BTW, according to newer studies, NSAIDS prevent from mountain sickness, but it was not their problem. The problem was night, exhaustion, cold, wind, and inappropriate clothes plus in her case, pneumonia. I don’t care viral or bacterial, pneumonia means inflammation of the lungs.

She wasnt "having viral pneumonia". She had an infection and it was on stage where she could and likely would not be aware she's getting sick in the morning.

Ibuprofen was found in her system during autopsy. Jelinek jumped on it with implication that she took it for that infection and Thomas obviously didnt know anything about this.
But ibuprofen gets out of the system and is not traceable in blood after 10-12 hours, theoretically could be up to 24. Doesnt go away with the moment of death.

According to Thomas's story she was still totally coherent at 2:00 AM when he left her (which is not true, but lets go with his claims now).
According to Thomas's story he secured her before he left.
According to autopsy she was hanging there for about 2 hours before she died from hypotermia.
That would make it past 4:00 AM.
Would be 22 hours since they left Matrei.
So essentially the claim is that she took ibuprofen in the morning to not let him know that she's sick and then what, kept taking more pills on the way? Were these pills found on her?

According to the climbers, ibuprofen is commonly taken by climbers to decrease the risk and side effects of altitude sickness. Unfortunately it doesnt seem like anyone bothered to ask Thomas's companions if he knew about it, was doing it himself or advising that to people he climbed with. Would be very interesting to know.

And on the other hand, if she indeed was aware that she's getting sick in the morning (obviously unlikely knowing what kind of sickness it is) then viral pneumonia which already was giving symptoms in the morning would, despite of ibuprofen, go bad fast with all the exhausting activities. She would almost unavoidably have breathing issues at the Fruhs already and it would only get worse. Pushing further and further up in that weather, especially above the 3000m...
Well, Im no expert but I'd love to hear from expert, how likely it would be that person would be able to scream and talk normally with fully blossomed pneumonia after 4,5 hours of hiking + 11,5 hours of non stop climbing, at least 7 of which above 3000m.

Viral pneumonia can absolutely cause very sudden deterioration. Good for Thomas for catching on that straw.
But he doesnt seem to mention noticing her having issues with breathing. Yet he does claim they were talking past 0:30 and that he was so close to her at some point he was lying next to her.
Would love to hear a doctor's opinion on how likely was that pneumonia was symptomatic in the morning yet unnoticeable 20 hours later in these circumstances.

 

[beubeubeu]

... in addition, the public discussion on social media that was prejudicial to the defendant was considered.

Now THAT makes my skin crawl. WTF.

If you have an innocent client, youre focusing on proving his innocence.
If not exactly that scenario it seem like a good idea to focus on the fact that cop unaware that he's dealing with the suspect didnt read the rights to - who he thought - was a traumatized survivor, that the other one could be mistaken in his reports cause he hasnt put whole names of the suspect in his notes and cause accused was a subject of prejudical public scrutiny which was in itself an form of punishment.
Better than Chris Watt's lawyer, worse than Robert Kardashian with OJ.

 

[Charlot123]

No, weather on the 18th was basically the best weather day in January.
Wind was not 74km/h. Gusts went up to about ~46 afternoon. 74 came later.
It was absolutely, totally 100% expected and predictable that:
a) weather WILL get rough later in the day,
b) as it will get rough it will only be getting rougher later.

Because the weather was actually somewhat decent, there were other climbers there. They hoped for the best and being able to summit before weather will go bad. Didnt happen so they turned back.

Experienced temp dropped to -20*C, but that was after sundown.

She couldnt have a good idea HOW that kind of weather and these kind of winds feel up the mountain on a route thats so exposed. She was never in situation like that.

He had great idea about it, he experienced it many times before.

Point of no return implies that turning back isnt possible. Which is not the case.
Saying it like that gives perception that he had no other choice but to keep pushing the climb up cause "no return".

That sign warns that going further up is only getting worse and takes more time. And that neither summiting and safely descending via normal route or going back likely wont be possible with sunlight if climbing up to that point took more than estimated ~2 hours from Studlgrat entrance/ ~3 hours from Studlhutte.

She wasnt "having viral pneumonia". She had an infection and it was on stage where she could and likely would not be aware she's getting sick in the morning.

Ibuprofen was found in her system during autopsy. Jelinek jumped on it with implication that she took it for that infection and Thomas obviously didnt know anything about this.
But ibuprofen gets out of the system and is not traceable in blood after 10-12 hours, theoretically could be up to 24. Doesnt go away with the moment of death.

According to Thomas's story she was still totally coherent at 2:00 AM when he left her (which is not true, but lets go with his claims now).
According to Thomas's story he secured her before he left.
According to autopsy she was hanging there for about 2 hours before she died from hypotermia.
That would make it past 4:00 AM.
Would be 22 hours since they left Matrei.
So essentially the claim is that she took ibuprofen in the morning to not let him know that she's sick and then what, kept taking more pills on the way? Were these pills found on her?

According to the climbers, ibuprofen is commonly taken by climbers to decrease the risk and side effects of altitude sickness. Unfortunately it doesnt seem like anyone bothered to ask Thomas's companions if he knew about it, was doing it himself or advising that to people he climbed with. Would be very interesting to know.

And on the other hand, if she indeed was aware that she's getting sick in the morning (obviously unlikely knowing what kind of sickness it is) then viral pneumonia which already was giving symptoms in the morning would, despite of ibuprofen, go bad fast with all the exhausting activities. She would almost unavoidably have breathing issues at the Fruhs already and it would only get worse. Pushing further and further up in that weather, especially above the 3000m...
Well, Im no expert but I'd love to hear from expert, how likely it would be that person would be able to scream and talk normally with fully blossomed pneumonia after 4,5 hours of hiking + 11,5 hours of non stop climbing, at least 7 of which above 3000m.

Viral pneumonia can absolutely cause very sudden deterioration. Good for Thomas for catching on that straw.
But he doesnt seem to mention noticing her having issues with breathing. Yet he does claim they were talking past 0:30 and that he was so close to her at some point he was lying next to her.
Would love to hear a doctor's opinion on how likely was that pneumonia was symptomatic in the morning yet unnoticeable 20 hours later in these circumstances.

We’ll discuss viral pneumonia later. But what happened to the other couples that day? Did they return back when the weather got worse?

 

[beubeubeu]

We’ll discuss viral pneumonia later. But what happened to the other couples that day? Did they return back when the weather got worse?

Yes. The 2+ people group descending back via Nordgrad are passing Studl's entrance about 19:30, and are safe back on the glacier around 20:30.

But was this from the Nordgrad group or from the normal route group?

"And another witness testifies who was on the Glockner on the day in question. He is an experienced alpinist. He was not alone. "I assumed 40 km/h wind from the south," he says, "and I was convinced for a long time that we would reach the summit." The wind had only become "extremely gusty" over time. "Suddenly we had the first problems here," he recalls, "my mountain partner said around 1 p.m. that she was going to break off the tour." The group turned back around 1:45 p.m." (I believe this is visible in the mountain cams, the group going back down)

This could NOT be from a lone climber who was visible on normal route in the morning hours of 18th:

Another climber who was on the mountain who crossed paths with KG and TP "Also on the same day on the Glockner was another alpinist. "I finally broke off the tour because of the weather," he says. Exciting: He had previously met the defendant and his girlfriend. "We exchanged ideas, even climbed up a part together," says the man, "Kerstin left behind us." The defendant had felt - in other words, he went ahead. "We went at a normal pace. The defendant always looked at his girlfriend, asked her, for example, how she was doing," he recalls."

That's from the same climber.
Studlhutte is where they had to part ways as normal route and Studlgrat route split there.

... is a guest witness in the Regional Court. He was on the normal route towards the summit.
The wind was "already very strong", which was also why he broke off his tour at the level of the
Glocknerleitl. The witness met the deceased and the accused on the mountain. They had
"talked a bit about the mountain world", he had exchanged ideas with the accused: "It was an
interesting and a fine conversation".
The deceased had rather "walked behind us", but they had "risen together". The defendant had
felt, then the witness had left, behind him the deceased. They were traveling "at a normal pace"
- and the "[first name of the accused] looked after her well" and asked back, for example: "Are
you okay?" The defendant had also briefly worn the skis of the deceased. All this had happened
in front of the Stüdlhütte.

Glocknerleitl is just there:

But 9:10 is waaaay too early to get up there after starting at 7:00 from Lucknerhaus.
So he must be one of the climbers that showed up there after noon. Which implies passing Studlhutte sometime around 10:00.

"Now an alpinist is being questioned, who was also on the Großglockner on the same day. "It was very windy," he says, "in the morning it was still okay, actually pleasant. But then the wind became stronger and stronger – even extremely strong." He later made an emergency call. "Because I saw a headlamp and heard a voice. I thought that was strange. I'm not sure if it was an emergency or not – but I didn't want to sit idle," says the alpinist. There are no further questions for him."

Also, doesnt seem like he was on Studlgrat.

Summarizing, on the 18th there was:
- group of 2+ people who were going up via Nordgrad,
- group of 4 people (?) going normal route after noon,
- single climber on a normal route at 9:10,
- Thomas & Kerstin

12:40 4 people visible
12:50 2 people visible
13:00 1 person standing in front of Glocknerleit
13:10 1 person closer to Adlers than to Glock
14:50 someone seems to be descending

That person/people descending after summiting or turning back at 14:50 could theoretically still see headlamps and hear voice as they were going down to Studl, or it could be (more likely) someone from Nordgrad group.

One way or another, they either all turned back or summited early, as it is possible that single climber from 9:10 summited and descended between 12:40-13:10