I think the combination of his refusing to continue communication with emergency services and waiting nearly 3 hours before requesting emergency aid is what makes this criminal negligence.
The stupidity on display, while impressive, I dont think is criminal in and of itself. A certain amount of risk and consequence can be expected of such an excursion.
That "refusing to continue communication" might have even just been "couldn't hear or feel vibrations from incoming calls". It's also possible he thought they weren't being helpful and decided it was a waste of time to rely on them (all depends on how that initial call went, though the fact that they say he didn't ask for help but he says he did could suggest a communication breakdown or tone mismatch).
It did sound like he was unprepared for how to handle such an emergency if they didn't even use the warming gear they had. But the question is at what point does unpreparedness become criminal and did he really have extra responsibility for her safety even if he thought they were equally experienced, or that she was at least experienced enough to handle her own safety? Unless the defense is lying completely, it sounds like the prosecution isn't approaching this in good faith and might be seeking revenge instead of justice.
What is weird is the phone in silent and him not trying to contact for help. Mobile coverage maps shows that this area is under coverage. From a personal experience, when It's really cold I usually put on every piece of clothes I can once I stop moving. Even get in my sleeping bag if necessary.
Yes. What was the point of him putting his phone on silent? What was the reasoning behind that?
Probably made the murder easier.
Arctic mountains... unexplored deep caves... diving into oceanic trenches... I feel like if you do any of these things, you are solely responsible if you get hurt or die, and that people do these things because they are so dangerous.
Either she was an experienced climber and made the decision to enter a dangerous, life-threatening situation, or she wasn't, and he dragged her into it. It seems like everyone is saying she's the former except these prosecutors who are looking to paint her as a victim, when she had the skill and experience to make that decision, and chose poorly.
Her footwear selection (light snowboarding boots) might indicate she’s on the wrong side of the knowledge curve. Dunning Krueger is a bitch sometimes. But I read elsewhere that her family is standing by him, and I assume there’s a reason for that.
I think it really depends how dangerous it would have been for him to stay with her.
On Everest, if someone is incapacitated, then there's no point waiting with them because then you'd die too and no rescue is coming.
This situation is different because a rescue could be mounted, and its not certain the guy would've died if he had have waited with her.
Like imagine you're swimming a few hundred metres from the beach and your partner gets a cramp, do you just say "oh well you knew the risks" and leave them?
Like imagine you're swimming a few hundred metres from the beach and your partner gets a cramp, do you just say "oh well you knew the risks" and leave them?
Only if you planned to breakup before, it avoid the uncomfortable situation for both person once you announced it and swim away 👍
If they can't be helped without putting yourself at risk of drowning too, then yes. For instance, if someone is panicking and thrashing around, posing a threat to rescue, then they yes, you leave them to die or risk dying as well. This is an uncomfortable reality of being in dangerous situations.
Yeah one of the things you learn in lifeguard class is that it’s a wrestling match against the person you’re trying to rescue if they aren’t compliant (many aren’t and you can’t assume they will be).
LIFESAVING
The lifesaving portion at BUDS is a little bit of wrestling, a little bit of swimming, and a little bit of weight lifting.
It’s all procedural - it is pass or fail - it is not timed. You do not need to rush.
You start by jumping into the pool using a stride jump - or what I like to call a very slow step into the water. A stride jump is basically spreading your legs as far apart as possible like your taking one giant step. You are trying to create as much surface area as possible so your head doesn’t go under the water. Your arms do the same thing, out to your sides. You must maintain eye contact on your victim the entire time.
From there, you will swim head up freestyle to your victim, maintaining visual on your drowning victim.
For a compliant, non combative victim, you’ll simply grab them by the wrist and pull them into your tow. This is the wrestling portion of lifesaving and should be fast and aggressive. For an uncompliant, combative victim, you need to dive under the water, grab the victim by the hips and turn them so that their back is facing you. Now crawl up there back and get them into your tow. You must be aggressive.
Arctic mountains
This one was in central Europe, though.
He also "allowed his girlfriend to use... snowboard soft boots, equipment that is not suitable for a high-altitude tour in mixed terrain", say prosecutors.
That ... is wonderfully placed. I can see the prosecutor saying it, stopping to check notes, and then continuing.
Allowed her to wear? Does he control her wardrobe?
He was considerably more experienced as a climber. And even I could tell you not to go mountain climbing in snowboarding boots.
If I were to take someone mountain climbing I wouldn't allow them to wear life threatening clothing.
'Her social media feed suggests she was a keen mountaineer and her mother has told German media that she loved mountain hiking at night.'
He cannot force her to wear anything, but as the experienced climber he can deny the tour/guidance. If you have the skill, but neglect to use them in human fashion, that makes it more than an accident.
Yeah I was wondering about that too, it only makes sense in a context where he's much much more knowledgeable about mountaineering than her.
If you climb on the back of my motorcycle with a paper hat instead of a helmet, I will not allow you to ride with me
no, but its extremely negligent to not suggest proper boots and gear for the hike. him being an experience hiker/climber should know that. since his intention is likely malicious its more than likely he allowed that.
"Are you really going to wear THAT?" is a question that men learn to never ask.
That tidbit right there takes in a darker direction.
Otherwise, I'd say just leaving someone when you're both freezing to death is scummy, but understandable.
Fun fact: … is called an ellipsis.
Never understood that name. What's so elliptical about it?
Etymology: Latin, from Greek elleipsis ellipsis, ellipse, from elleipein to leave out, fall short, from en in + leipein to leave
Oh!
Well that makes sense. Thank you.
So an elliptical trajectory is also called that because it "falls short" of a circular one?
ellipse(n.) 1753, from French ellipse (17c.), from Latin ellipsis "ellipse," also, "a falling short, deficit," from Greek elleipsis (see ellipsis). So called because the conic section of the cutting plane makes a smaller angle with the base than does the side of the cone, hence, a "falling short."
https://www.etymonline.com/word/ellipse
Edit: yes
During the court trial, a witness testified that he had essentially done the same thing to her. He took her on excessively difficult hikes with inadequate equipment, then talked her into continuing, only to leave her crying and distressed in the middle of the night on the Grossglockner.
Ye olde question is : did he recently take out a life insurance policy on her?
That's a tough call. Sounds to me that it was reckless to climb the mountain under those conditions but both decided to go ahead. Nevertheless, the reaction of the accused to the emergency is bad. Calling the police and then putting his phone on silent makes little sense. Leaving her to "get help" is of course futile.
Interesting case. I think it's hard to call with the little facts on hand. There seems to be at least some level of neglect. I wonder, though, did she not have a phone? Was there no reception, or why did she not call or signal for help herself? If there was no reception, what else could he have done? Were there other ways to make it through the night? Those details will have to be evaluated in court.
There seems to be at least some level of neglect.
Especially since he is claimed to have quite a bit of alpine experience compared to her. That's really what brings the liability of negligence to the whole scenario.
Alpine hiking at night is already incredibly dangerous, but not ensuring the person with the least amount of experience has the correct equipment and knows how to use it is just wild.
I wonder, though, did she not have a phone? Was there no reception, or why did she not call or signal for help herself?
Well the confusing thing is that they had helicopters overfly them multiple times as they made their climb and both failed to signal and continued their way to the summit. The person on trial claims that she was doing fine until right after the last flyover and then suddenly started to get worse.
As someone with a mild amount of cold weather experience..... I don't really believe this at all. If I were a betting guy I would wager that she was already suffering from the mental affects of hypothermia. You can enter a super suggestive state the colder you get and your mental faculties and decision making ability rapidly deteriorate to the point where you can get lost and just start walking in circles.
Were there other ways to make it through the night?
She did have a bivy sack that could have provided at least a decent amount of shelter, but he didn't help her set it up before he left her on the mountain.
Tbh it really seems like he was purposely trying to endanger her, or at very least is a huge piece of shit that didn't care about her well-being. This would be like a scuba diver taking an amateur on a night dive, not teaching them how to operate their regulator, and than abandoning them a hundred feet underwater in the dark. It really is criminal.
Snowboard boots...for winter mountain climbing. Scarpa, Mammut, Lowa, etc...Prosecute the dumbfuck.
I misread it as Australia's highest mountain. Was thinking it would be a bit awkward when you can still see her from the car park...
A community for discussing events around the World
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF OCTOBER 19 2025
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/