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.”
“• the tour started 2 hours late, as the defendant could have expected a higher average speed at that time;” - the first question that begs to be asked, is why the heck did the defendant not turn back when he saw a lower average speed? A lower average speed means either the weather is cra@@y or the partner can’t meet the demands or both?
“ 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.” - but he didn’t use Kerstin’s equipment even for Kerstin! He didn’t even cover her. This is so damning.
“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”. This is what I was asking: is he, essentially, dense and can’t use what he was taught? Then he has no business dragging anyone in the mountains with him.
And what does “differentiated standard of care?” means? I read it as Kerstin was not his level of expertise in mountain training? Or does it mean that “in such a bad, windy weather it was hard to use a running rope?” Then again, why the heck did Thomas go up the mountain in such a weather?
“the allegation that the emergency call was placed not at 12:35 a.m. but only at 3:30 a.m. 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.” - He waved away the helicopter at 10:20 pm! At 12:35 it would be probably impossible to land the helicopter. Any windows of time during which Kerstin could be saved, were lost. Even in the morning the saviors had to lower her body down the mountain, for the helicopter to land.
“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.”
Isn’t it a strange way to look at it: “poor me, I lost a life partner”? What about a woman who lost her life?
