Marathon trial

Glockner drama: guilty verdict after more than 13 hours

After more than 13 hours, Judge Norbert Hofer (right) handed down a verdict in the marathon trial surrounding the Glockner drama.(Bild: Bergrettung Kals, Johanna Birbaumer, Krone KREATIV)

The tragedy shocked Austria and far beyond: Kerstin G. (33) died tragically of hypothermia on the Großglockner in January 2025. Her boyfriend had to answer charges of grossly negligent homicide at the Innsbruck Regional Court on Thursday. After more than 13 hours, the verdict in the marathon trial, which is not yet final, was handed down: five months' suspended imprisonment and a fine of 9,600 euros.

"I am infinitely sorry. I loved her," began the accused Thomas P. (37) in his approximately two-hour statement at the trial for grossly negligent homicide. Hour by hour of that fateful night on January 19, 2025, on the Stüdlgrat ridge of the Großglockner (3,798 meters) was meticulously dissected. This took place in front of around 50 media representatives, which is rare even in cases of capital crimes.

"I was not in the lead," the conqueror of numerous difficult peaks (Dachstein, Ortler, etc.) emphasized repeatedly, saying that everything had been planned together. This was contradicted by an early post by his mountain companion after a joint tour: "Thanks for bringing me up."

The defendant shortly before the start of the trial(Bild: Johanna Birbaumer)

Prosecutor identified "fundamental mistakes"
Prosecutor Johann Frischmann listed "many fundamental errors" made by the experienced mountaineer, saying that they should never have gotten into this disastrous situation. The allegations ranged from a late start at 6:45 a.m., ignoring a circling police helicopter, and ultimately—when it was a matter of life and death—leaving the weakened Kerstin G. behind in minus eight degrees Celsius and gusts of up to 74 km/h.

Only gummy bears for sustenance
The "provisions" for the two – something to drink and gummy bears – also caused frowns in the packed courtroom, which included many mountaineers. Judge Norbert Hofer also took a close look at the equipment. For example, the deceased had normal crampons on her soft snowboard boots instead of specially designed ones, which are suboptimal for rock climbing.

The evaluations of sports watches, smartphones, and a webcam showed that the two were moving slower and slower on the icy ridge – "in the end, they needed 5.8 hours for 91 meters of elevation gain," the prosecutor specified.

I didn't think about the rescue blanket and her bivouac sack. It was a stressful and exceptional situation.

Der Angeklagte beim Prozess

"She wanted me to go and get help."
It took an hour and a half just to get the rope out of a rock protrusion: standing still in the bitter cold, which took an immense amount of energy. At the end of her strength, the 33-year-old could only crawl forward. Then the decision: he wanted to cross the summit, hoping for help at the Adlersruhe. "I didn't think about the rescue blanket and her bivouac sack. It was a stressful and exceptional situation," he explains, explaining why the 33-year-old was left virtually unprotected and froze to death. And: "She wanted me to go and get help."

"Why didn't you dial 911 when she couldn't go on?" insisted the judge. There was no answer. Thomas P., who was also completely exhausted, had set his cell phone to vibrate mode on the way down. "I was in a trance, I threw up twice."

The "Krone" live ticker to read:

There were differing statements regarding the content of a phone call with an alpine police officer at 12:35 a.m. Whether it was an emergency or not, the rescuer wrote with three question marks because he could no longer reach the 37-year-old. Silence.

"We assume that there were misunderstandings in this conversation," defense attorney Kurt Jelinek relativizes. 

The defendant was defended by attorney Kurt Jelinek.(Bild: Bergrettung Kals, Johanna Birbaumer, Krone KREATIV)

Parents: "Mountaineering on the same level"
The couple's parents took the difficult step of taking the stand, with Kerstin G.'s mother emphasizing her independence. It had been a mountaineering relationship on "equal footing."

The investigators and alpine police officers also spoke in the afternoon. The defense attorney's criticism: after more than 30 hours of physical and mental exertion, his client was no longer able to respond adequately to the initial questioning. However, one investigator described how the Salzburg man was able to "describe in great detail" the place where he had left his girlfriend. For example, he said that the cross was already visible. The 33-year-old was also questioned about the late emergency call – "he couldn't give a specific answer," the police officer recalls.

Then he suddenly left, he just walked ahead.

Ex-Freundin des Angeklagten

Ex-girlfriend: "He kept getting grumpy."
An ex-girlfriend of the defendant was also questioned – with some quite explosive statements. "We went on tours together," she described as a witness. And she looked back on the role she played: "My ex-boyfriend always took the lead." Interestingly, the woman said that the defendant became "grumpy" when things didn't go as planned on the mountain.

She continued: "During a high-altitude tour on the Glockner, the mood was bad. I was at the end of my strength, I was dizzy, my headlamp was out, I cried and screamed. I signaled this to him. Then he suddenly disappeared; he had gone ahead." Fortunately, this was during the descent, which was no longer so difficult. The matter ended well.

Expert opinion put defendant in a difficult position
The alpine technical expert described the deceased as very fit and motivated. However, she was virtually a beginner when it came to such winter high-alpine tours. "In any case, her skills were significantly below those of the defendant." The 33-year-old's previous tours, some of which she had completed alone, were not comparable to the winter Stüdlgrat. The woman's equipment was also problematic, specifically the crampons she used with her soft snowboard boots. This made the climb much more strenuous. "It makes it much more strenuous because you have to use your arms more."

The expert noted that both were in excellent physical condition. However, he could not comment on the woman's state of health on that day. In general, the Stüdlgrat tour should be considered "very ambitious." Planning to reach the summit at 9 p.m. was "absolutely inappropriate."

The expert's conclusion: The defendant should have realized that they needed to descend or bivouac in good time. "But he chose to press on, which very often goes wrong."

After 13.5 hours, a verdict was reached
At 10:34 p.m., 13.5 hours after the trial began, Judge Norbert Hofer handed down the non-final verdict: five months' suspended imprisonment and a fine of €9,600. 

Responsible because he is "galactically better"
"You are an outstanding mountaineer. But you find it difficult to respond to the abilities of others," Hofer began his reasoning. It was clear that Kerstin G. had been "in the care" of the defendant on the Glockner tour, because she was "galaxies away" from the 37-year-old's mountaineering skills.

Climbing a route with a difficulty rating of five in climbing shoes is very different from being on the Stüdlgrat in snowboard boots and crampons that don't quite fit. Overall, the defendant misjudged the 33-year-old's inexperience. The beginning of the Großglockner tragedy...