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.
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 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.
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.'
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
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
Ye olde question is : did he recently take out a life insurance policy on her?
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?
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.
Sure, but you're taking me out of context.
The comment I replied to is basically saying that if it's a risky endeavor then if things go wrong you just say "oh well you knew the risks" and leave.
As an aside, I'm Australian, I have a surf life-saving accreditation (very common here), I'm well aware of the dangers of a water rescue.
My point is, it's not a question of whether the person in need of rescue knew the risks, rather a question of the risks to the rescuer. As I said in my comment it's not clear what the risks to the guy really were. It does seem that, had the couple been appropriately provisioned, the risks to him would've been minimal.
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.
Unless he tied her and dragged her up the mountain or broke her legs before leaving her there I don't see how he is any more responsible than she is.
My ex used to claim they could do X or Y task and I would make arrangements under the assumption they knew what they were talking about.
We'd get to the point they would need to utilise said skill, and they'd turn to me and say actually I thought I could wing it but I can't, you're going to have to do this now.
If I'd been told at the start that they didn't know, I would have spent more time investigating the situation and upskilled myself in preparation. Instead, I'd ask "Do we have everything we need? Does this look good?", get told it's fine - and it wasn't.
The lady in the article may well have deferred to his expertise when asking if she was adequately prepared, and trusted his judgement over a quick Dr Google search.
It's perfectly understandable in many different situations but climbing the highest peak in Austria is not one of them. A normal person would go for an easy hike first, do some multiday hiking next, do some winter hiking, do some multiday winter hiking and at the same time climb ~2000m peak, climb ~3000m peak and then try climbing 3.700m peak in winter. You can skip some steps if you feel comfortable and someone with more experience helps you but if you find yourself in a situation that's completely beyond what you can manage it's on you. Normal person should also understand the difference between professional mountain guide and just another climber. As you said, people can lie and you can never put absolute trust in someone.
And yes, I can imagine a fucked up scenario where the guy manipulates her and intentionally puts her in a situation she can't handle but for me it's closer to situation like romance fraud than to criminal negligence. You would have to prove that he gaslighted her, presented her with false information and otherwise manipulated her over extended period of time to build trust with the purpose of killing her. If you can't prove that then we're talking about two consenting adults doing something dangerous and one of them dying.
'Her social media feed suggests she was a keen mountaineer and her mother has told German media that she loved mountain hiking at night.'
Not even her mother claims she is a rookie it seems, only the prosecutors.
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.
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.
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.
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...
~~At one point the article calls her his client but never explicitly states if he was acting in any professional sense or not (it seems not).~~ The case against him seems to mostly be that apparently she had no responsibility for herself? ~~If he was acting in a professional capacity that might hold but otherwise seems flimsy.~~
The article doesn’t call the dead woman the client of her boyfriend, it calls the boyfriend the client of the defence attorney.
Mountaineering is dangerous and expensive.
I don't have much sympathy for the people that use their excess wealth for thrills while children go without food and education.
I can sort of see your point, but it also sounds a little like "oh you enjoy any hobby or activity not strictly related to your survival? Well fuck you then, there are people starving".
The original comment has been deleted but I can guess what was said.
People like this have no concept of what being wealthy truly means. They think that people who have a well paying job, some money in the bank, and can afford some nice things, are somehow the 1%.
They're cooked, and not worth replying to.
There is value in exploring hobbies and building skills. For example, during natural disasters in remote areas, people with experience are better suited to go in and help. People with climbing experience might be going down into a collapsed mine to rescue survivors.
Thanks for this. I now feel less guilty about buying a guitar because I could one day use it to soothe the minds of trapped miners.
Yeah, think about that while fingering A minor or picking a G-string.
Don't fret. When I want to switch to A minor, I keep my finger firmly in place on a very thin nylon G string.
??? Austrians on an Austrian mountain, why would that be out of reach to working people and involve excess wealth at all? Also, those problems are for the state to solve and Austria has a decent welfare system, improvable, like all of them, but not something to be fixed by two random citizens.
This is honestly something that you should speak to a therapist about.
You are posting this from a computer or smart phone, a device that costs a significant amount of money. You are wasting your leisure time that you have because of your comfortable wealth and status in society to post to an online platform which doesn't contribute anything to the world. You are richer than most people on the planet. You are wasting the opportunities given to you as a rich person. You could sell your electronic devices and give the money to the poor. You could be volunteering right now helping less fortunate people. Instead you comment on social media that people who are slightly richer than you don't deserve sympathy for their deaths. People who are actually out in the world living their lives exploring the world and enriching themselves.
Is it really right to be judging someone in this way? In the way that I have just judged you?
From the beginning you dismiss the argument as a mental health problem. This is something a disingenuous asshole does.
Comparing the ridiculous amount of money people waste on mountain climbing to someone's personal computing device you must have to participate in modern society has to be one of the stupidest nonsensical arguments I have ever seen.
Then, on social media yourself no less, you try to play the morally superior one by pointing out supposed hypocrisy. Weak sauce garbage.
You didn't judge anything, but you did show you act like a dishonest bullshitter.
You're upset that I criticized how wealthy people waste their wealth on vain endeavors while children live in poverty.
No, man. Introspect a little.
No, I said that you should speak to a therapist. You seemed like you are jealous of others and insecure about the impact that you have on the world. Compared to most people on this planet you are almost certainly a wealthy person , or else you wouldn't have the luxury to be wasting your time making these comments in this place.
Your comments are literally a vain endeavour.
You're the one who needs a therapist. Look at how upset you're getting and how much nonsense you need to make up because someone else criticized how wealthy people waste their money.
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/