As they should. Since "the accused" insists on innocence then the "guilty" verdict is far from that.
And I dont't know, I can't tell for sure but it contextually sounds like A LOT (more than I mentioned) important questions werent asked.
I totally dont get why this judge get so highely praised for the trial. Yup, so many things he executed well.
But how, HOW an experienced climber, member of rescue team can so officially say that not even "still going for that climb despite of being late but in all best hopes that they will still make it in time" (which would be irresponsible but not outrageous) HOW BUT PLANNING IT TO START FROM LUCKNHERHAUS PARKING LOT PAST 7:00 IN THE MORNING, IN JANUARY was not criminally neglectful and dangerous?
That's essentially a blessing for people to get themselves in mortal danger - and others, and rescuers, by starting their tours so late cause judge Norbert Hofer ruled that's fine as long as every member of the group can count in somebodys eyes as a "strong athlete".
There is a reason why Lucknerhutte, Studlhutte and Adlershutte are there. Not entirely closed shut even during Winter-Winter time (as Winter climbing season starts in March) and that is to ensure climber's safety. So they can take a shelter there before or after their climbs. Cause it is D A N G E R O U S to do it all in one day. Thats only for very experienced people who also have a luck with weather (despite of following weather predictions, cause despite of that its still required for a safe climb).
There is a reason why vast majority of experienced climbers start "middle of the night" even in summer. There is a reason why no mountain guide would go on a January climb that starts after 7:00 in the morning.
To ensure people's safety! Cause doing it other ways is NOT safe.
This is absolutely outrageous. By itself. It should never be said, especially in a trial where whole world is watching.
At least to me still pushing forward with the escapade despite of the awareness of oversleeping few hours would be much LESS reckless and neglectful, in the context of accused's experience and knowledge (that he undoubtfully had) than planning it to start after 7:00 in the morning.
And why that wild ride from Matrei hasnt got adressed at all? Making all that distance in claimed, less than 15 mins, through all these narrow roads was:
1) reckless speeding,
2) not such a great indicator that everything went as planned - as if all was planned so well then why driving so fast?
If the accused had receipts for several, or even one, single one climb that started so late in Winter yet still went smooth with summiting and descending with daylight - could be a different story.
That could be in his mind a reason to assume that its all gonna be fine. Understandable reason.
But he DID NOT have that. He had a history of his own climbs lasting till dark, dark evening (started at unknown hour to me) and at least one deeply traumatized girlfriend. Thats severe change of context and limits the assumptions that can be made in good, responsible will.
One climb, several climbs starting late, going fast, safe and smooth -> the accused could assume in good faith that this time its gonna be like that as well.
Multiple nightly descends, possibly even ascends, on THAT VERY MOUNTAIN and at least one horrible situation there -> nope, the accused could NOT assume in good faith that everything is gonna be fast, safe and smooth. No by itself, even less with context that "strong athlete" with "relevant alpine expierience" who "had relationship with him on equal footing" never climbed Gross, never climbed in Winter, never climbed that altitude and didnt have gear as good and adequate as he did.
Well, this judge did a good job.
We say "Alpine divorce" or "mountain divorce", and yet how often are people indeed found guilty?
Two people are hiking or climbing in the mountains, and only one returns. There are no witnesses. We hear of a rockfall, an avalanche, someone accidentally falling off the cliff, or freezing.
We also know "what goes in the mountains, stays in the mountains". Sometimes we read, "twenty years later, the body of such-and-such was found".
Go guess, an accident or an intentional act of the climbing partner? It never gets to court.
There is another side to it: some innocent teammate/s, indeed, end up living the rest of their lives under unfair spell of suspicion.
All of it falls under "mountaineering controversy, no witnesses".
This trial is one of the few rare ones that ended in "guilty" verdict. So we can commend the judge.
The story starts the usual way: an athletic couple departs for an allegedly consensual mountain trip, and only one returns. The survivor says all the right words, “I miss you so much. It hurts so incredibly much. Forever in my heart. Without you, time is meaningless." But note: there is zero survivor's guilt, which is shocking in itself. One of the grieving phases and emotions is totally absent. To me, it was very strange to hear, from the getgo: it was an equal partnership, we were both in peak physical form, one of us simply didn't make it. "Non mea culpa est". (Dude, don't you know that even if technically it is not one's fault, normal people always feel guilty?)
What was also different? First, this is not a horribly high mountain, the rescuers got the body, took photos and made the reports. They are cautious people, they don't accuse, but they know what people are not taught to do in the mountains. The judge was the rescuer, too. I assume that for many of them something felt odd.
And then: the witnesses below and the webcams on the other mountain. The webcams that registered everything seemingly making no sense. Two lights stuck, one getting dimmer and the other, bright and strong, moving down the mountain from the other side.
This is not the social media that's so damning nor even the previous girlfriend, although her testifying about the pervasiveness of Thomas's behavior was very important.
The photos from the webcams prompted the community to start asking, "what is he doing there? They are stuck, call the emergency." And finally, the damning, "i think it was on purpose".
It is all on cameras, Thomas. It won't disappear. It's what people see.
