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

 

[georgiajean]

From the trial "ticker": Bedingte Haft und Geldstrafe für Angeklagten im "Großglockner-Prozess"

'"Maximilian Werner 19.2.2026, 01:47
Rope blockade
From the breakfast place, it took "a little longer than expected," says the accused. There was also a rope blockage, otherwise there were no major problems. He could not explain the corresponding file notes.

Now it's more about the rope blockage, which occurred because the deceased would have had to climb a little further to the left. The rope had been left out "twelve to 13 meters". The judge questions this with surprise, normally one would only "climb around" (i.e. correct the direction) on the tensioned rope, otherwise there is a risk that the secured person will fall back into the loosened rope.'"

Looking at your mobile phone?
Now the judge spoke for a few minutes about problems on the tour, the deceased had had a "rope pendulum", slipped, slightly injured her hip.

Here are two problems described by TP.

A "rope blockage" where KG caused it by climbing a little to the left, blocking the smooth passage of the rope. TP "let out 12-13 meters (!!) of rope" to correct the blockage instead of having KG correct the direction on the tensioned rope. Why? Was it impossible for her to correct her direction, ie it was not possible for her to go that way?

And a "rope pendulum" where KG slipped and swung freely on the rope, making contact with the rock face where she injured her hip.

Which incident caused the hand injury and the loss of a glove?

 

[beubeubeu]

From the trial "ticker": Bedingte Haft und Geldstrafe für Angeklagten im "Großglockner-Prozess"



Here are two problems described by TP.

A "rope blockage" where KG caused it by climbing a little to the left, blocking the smooth passage of the rope. TP "let out 12-13 meters (!!) of rope" to correct the blockage instead of having KG correct the direction on the tensioned rope. Why? Was it impossible for her to correct her direction, ie it was not possible for her to go that way?

And a "rope pendulum" where KG slipped and swung freely on the rope, making contact with the rock face where she injured her hip.

Which incident caused the hand injury and the loss of a glove?

Where it says that Kerstin caused it?
To me it sounds like HE caused it by leaving her with insane amount of loose rope - which judge explains as posing a risk of falling. Which apparently happened.

Also, worth noting that "a little longer than expected" for Thomas means about THREE TIMES LONGER than expected.
Cause Fruhs-Summit is ~3 hours expected. May be 4 for Winter.
5 hours later they've made 1/3 of the distance from Frush to the Summit.

Was her "slight" injure diminished to the oblivion in similar style?

 

[RedHaus]

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

So sad. That testimony should have been considered by the judge as TP's first negligent homicide attempt. Killing KG was a repeat offence and his sentence should have reflected that. The man is a raging narcissist that will likely kill again, IMO.

 

[beubeubeu]

So sad. That testimony should have been considered by the judge as TP's first negligent homicide attempt. Killing KG was a repeat offence and his sentence should have reflected that. The man is a raging narcissist that will likely kill again, IMO.

To me, if Andrea didnt and still doesnt feel that was attempted homicide, she may be right.
But what it for sure was: an ultimate occasion to notice and realize that kind of behavior is dangerous, wrong and unacceptable.
His girlfriend didnt felt safe climbing with him. I bet he havent noticed that, doesnt remember that or "cant really explain it".

And that couldnt be his first time if after that hellish experience she learned that he has a certain opinion in the eyes of other climbers.

Was he in shock and saving his life on ALL these occasions? I wonder.
Does his mind react that to the altitude?
If so, it may be "not his fault" but 100% his responsibility cause he had to be aware of this.

Arent we this forgiving towards people who are fine while sober but turn aggresive and violent after drinking? While they drink again, hurt someone, drink, hurt, drink, kill or lead and leave someone to die?
I dont think so.

 

[beubeubeu]

To me, if Andrea didnt and still doesnt feel that was attempted homicide, she may be right.
But what it for sure was: an ultimate occasion to notice and realize that kind of behavior is dangerous, wrong and unacceptable.
His girlfriend didnt felt safe climbing with him. I bet he havent noticed that, doesnt remember that or "cant really explain it".

By that I meant that its not possible to "not notice", "forget" or "not understand" the magnitude of what happened.

Does his mind react that to the altitude?
If so, it may be "not his fault" but 100% his responsibility cause he had to be aware of this.

I must say that I've never heard of it but since some people just cant be on the Sea and they are not getting "adjusted" just sick all the time, as well as some people react to alcohol or "just weed" in a way that's far from normal and they're getting excessively reckless, aggressive, crazy and so on - then I guess it may also happen to some people with altitude.
And in that case sure, its not the person's fault that their body/brain reacts so differently. First time, they dont know and can't really expect it. Second, third time is enough to notice and make some conclusions.

So I meant that EVEN if his behavior was caused by something like that - even prior to hurting Andrea he was acting in a way that made people afraid of him, wary of him, and want to avoid him.
That's not a thing anyone can not notice.
That should make him aware of the issue and cause to either quit climbing or quit climbing with other people (unless maybe bigger groups with equally or more experienced climbers than him).
That's what good, responsible person would do (in my opinion).

Arent we this forgiving towards people who are fine while sober but turn aggresive and violent after drinking? While they drink again, hurt someone, drink, hurt, drink, kill or lead and leave someone to die?
I dont think so.

And to be real: we WERE doing exactly that as far as I remember.
I vividly remember the case of a stalker who was violent, aggressive and murdered a teenage girl which he saw as his girlfriend (despite of her trying to run away from him). Happened in late 1930's. Dozens of whitnesses as he shot her in public. And he got like two years for that as judge understood that he was very emotional during that murder and couldnt think clearly.
Would it fly today? I don't think so.

Less vividly, there were cases I remember very vaguely and none of them was really "big" anymore, I just read that randomly while digging through old newspapers. Being under influence of alcohol was working as partial excuse and was resulting in very low sentences. Cant tell how often but it was happening.
Was drunk -> couldnt think clearly -> couldnt conciously made a decision to murder someone -> so counts as almost accidental.
Doesnt really happen anymore. At least not often, thankfully.

 

[Charlot123]

So sad. That testimony should have been considered by the judge as TP's first negligent homicide attempt. Killing KG was a repeat offence and his sentence should have reflected that. The man is a raging narcissist that will likely kill again, IMO.

I would be surprised if it is altitude. After all, it is the terrain, not the height, that makes Grossglockner so difficult.

My theory: what if he has hands that virtually grow out of the wrong place? Mountain climbing is a very practical, technical field, it seems. It is about anssembling and understanding how things work together. What happened, rope blockade, describes a person who doesn't have a technological mind, and gets hysterical when he messes up because he doesn't understand how to "unmess" it.

He could have been either climbing alone or with groups where he was "a sidekick"? And when he is "the leader", he fails, but the women, being far less experienced, don't notice it, unless it is too late? And when he fails, he gets hysterical and it manifests in anger?

I think that leaving Kerstin to freeze in the mountains was Thomas's crime, but his decision to continue climbing after Frühstücksplatz, with the weather getting progressively worse, indicates severe lack of foresight, because not only are you subjecting another person to risk, you are unable to appreciate your own risk. What if he fell, given the wind and the elements? She’d perish if he got harmed as well.

We see it more often than we think. We just don't have the courage to call it what it is, unfounded self-confidence. If you are a pilot with minimal experience, certified to fly under visual flight rules, accident-prone in general, and you are running late, then don't fly, especially with passengers on board. You’ll kill yourself and your passengers. Why can’t people be a tad critical and understand that not everyone has the skills to be the pilot? Or the group leader in mountaineering?

There is a certain dynamic...perhaps a man can't admit, I am not good enough, in the eyes of his girlfriend? And a woman tries to prove her man that she’s worthy of him, instead of saying, “enough”?

Only in this case he was also a coward and a criminal?

 

[beubeubeu]

I would love to hear more about that allegedly pleasant conversation he had with the other climber.
He was male I assume. And moderately reasonable since with that late start he set himself on realistic normal route attempt & then responsibly turned back as it became risky.
Have they discussed the weather?
The Studlgrat plan?
Did Kerstin even heard them talking or was she too far behind?
These reported questions if she's okay/fine are as suspicious to me as everything else.

If she was so equal to him in his mind, so "relevantly alpine experienced" and so fit then why was he repeatedly asking her if she's okay during a pretty basic hike?
Excuse me but pretty much anyone who can walk and has even a low level of fitness can walk from Lucknerhaus to Studlhutte. May get out of breath a couple times but apart from that should be fine. It turns into more challenging hike between Studlhutte and Studlgrat entrance but then the other climber already went into Adler's direction (and normal route).
Was that simple virtue signaling or something else? I wont go for him being genuinely concerned about her and caring cause considering what he did later it's just utterly ridiculous to me and to rule out of the range of possibilities.

Obviously my guess is that she was either still unaware theyre going via Studlgrat or unaware that theyre going to climb Gross on that day at all.
Supported by her mom's testimony. Despite of her fondness of Thomas.
She said that Kerstin was ALWAYS discussing her routes with her. ALWAYS vs. NOT AT ALL that time.
She said Kerstin was always well prepared and planning her climbs vs. her being ready to some sort of Winter outdoor activities but not so much climbing Gross in January.
She said Kerstin relied on Thomas with her gear and yes she did, to her demise.
She said that in December Kerstin expressed interest in climbing Gross but that didnt get much more specific. So what? That mom who always planned and offered her tips to Kerstin felt like there is no need for such an discussion about damned GROSSGLOCKNER in Winter? - how likely that sounds? Cause to me, not very. Sounds like it was said as unspecified plan/wish/goal for the future.
Then why no climbs between that talk and Gross climb? There wasnt any. Just these mentioned ski tours. Why not climb something smaller and easier while getting ready for a big mountain?

Did mom knew Kerstin is going on Studlgrat? Did she knew she was getting on Gross at all?
Cause that evening text that left her at ease that Kerstin is "out of the danger (climbing) zone" implies that at some point she learned that she went to climb something. How much it was said?
Even that more detailed description of the trial does not set that straight and does not explain if Kerstin even knew "her" plans in advance.

And why was he using her splitboard-skis?
What was he using them for? What about his skis? After all he DIDNT have them?
Or he did but he still wanted to use hers by some odd reason?
And what was she doing while he was using them? Was left behind as Thomas and another climber skiied the part of the route? Was left behing with another climber as Thomas skiied? Was walking in her snowboarding shoes while Thomas or Thomas and another climber made it easier for themselves and put on skis?

 

[beubeubeu]

his decision to continue climbing after Frühstücksplatz, with the weather getting progressively worse, indicates severe lack of foresight, because not only are you subjecting another person to risk, you are unable to appreciate your own risk. What if he fell, given the wind and the elements? She’d perish if he got harmed as well.

It would indicate severe lack of foresight in most other climbers that are not bragging about left and right how theyre experts at climbing on ice. With receipts.

He was t a lost puppy in wind and snow.

Do you see that?



This is what he climbed on 5th of February 2004.

Weather on 3rd:

-8*C ar 7:00 in the morning, 23km/h NW wind, 100km/h gusts
-6*C at noon, 30km/h NW wind, 90km/h gusts,
-5*C at 7:00 in the evening, 10km/h NW wind, 87km/h gusts

Weather on 4th:

-8*C ar 7:00 in the morning, 28km/h NW wind, 102km/h gusts
-6*C at noon, 43km/h NW wind, 97km/h gusts,
-7*C at 7:00 in the evening, 23km/h NW wind, 106km/h gusts

Weather on 5th:

-5*C ar 7:00 in the morning, 11km/h W wind, 113km gusts
-5*C at noon, 8km/h NW wind, 103km/h gusts
-3*C at 7:00 in the evening, 2km/h NW wind, 71km/h gusts

So temp slightly higher, weaker wind but insane gusts and he still went there.

Then look at this, week later, 18th 2024:



Weather on 18th, 2025:

-9*C ar 7:00 in the morning, 23km/h SW wind, 38km/h gusts
-5*C at noon, 1km wind, 33km/h gusts,
-4*C at 7:00 in the evening, 6km/h N wind, 49km/h gusts

Slightly worse but not that much different from what was repeatedly climbing through.
And it only gets worse while exposed, on the mountain. There wind is even stronger.
Lack of foresight and unable to appreciate his own risk? Naively getting himself into mortal danger?
Or rather excellent familiarity with the mountain and experience with its Winter weather. Especially considering that each time he was fine.

Pics from.

 

[Hexe]

I strongly believe Kerstin did not know they were going to Grossglockner via Studlgrat, that's why she was not prepared for that. My suspicion is she angered Thomas P. with something during one of the previous climbs/hikes (was she too good in some parts of climbing? Skied too well? Said something that injured his fragile narcissistic ego? Don't know) and so he decided to get her, underprepared, for a difficult climb during difficult weather, to punish her.

And then it kept getting worse, he kept getting worse, because the more difficult it get for her, the more angry he got.

MOO