Partner Charged With Manslaughter after Girlfriend Freezes to Death in Austrian Alps

Maybe the prosecutor has strong evidence to the contrary, but it appears the victim willingly participated in the incompetent climbing decisions that led to her death. 

I read a couple of articles about this and they did not mention anything at all about the victim's participation in the climbing decisions, one way or the other. These articles are largely devoid of facts, in fact. I'm guessing I may have missed something, but then again... maybe not. We don't have a full deck here (me, most of all)

This is, obviously, a horrible tragedy and my heart goes out to the victim and her family.

I have questions; I don't know if we'll ever know their answers. We have some news articles and an indictment; the indictment is in German and is necessarily going to tell a one sided story. Here's a Google translated summary: oe24.at/oesterreich/chronik…;

But criminal liability is a high bar. Not an impossible bar, but a high one.

My sense is that in order to establish a level of criminal responsibility, the prosecution is going to need to establish something like this:

1. Something about the relationship between these two people made the guy responsible for both of their actions, to the point where responsibility for the outcome rests with him, not both of them collectively, or her alone; 
2. The guy made choices that were well outside the bounds of acceptable mountaineering practices; and
3. Those choices were the cause of her death;
4. or, perhaps there is evidence of something more intentional: that he prevented her from turning back, or prevented her from calling for help. But the reporting doesn't seem to support that interpretation, yet. 

 Some questions I would want to know the answers to before deciding that a non-professional climber was criminally liable for the death of his partner:

1. What was the victim's experience level?
   1. Did she ever participate in trips/climbs by herself or with other friends or romantic partners or clubs/groups, or only with this guy? 
   2. Did she ever plan trips for herself, or with other friends/partners/groups?
   3. Did she have any formal mountaineering training? First aid training?
   4. Did she have any winter mountaineering experience? 
2. What was the guy's experience level? Did he have formal training? What did other partners say about his preparation, mindset, fitness, experience, and decision making skills?
3. What was their relationship dynamic like?
4. What communication occurred between the two in the days prior to the climb? Who did the planning, who picked out the gear, who picked the route? who packed the food? What guidebook/resources did they review? did she look at them, or only him?
   1. what was the forecast, did they check it (and when), and did they both check it?
5. What communication occurred between them on the climb?
   1. Did she ever express a wish to turn around? did he?
   2. Did she exhibit signs of hypothermia, and when in the climb did she begin to show those signs?
   3. Did he exhibit signs of hypothermia, and when?
   4. How much did either of them eat during the day? drink?
   5. what was the communication between them at each of the key moments in the day: 
      1. when the helicopter flew over them a first time?
         1. and then again?
         2. Why didn't she wave when the helicopter flew over them (was she already incapacitated? or did she not know what to do? Or did he tell her not to)?
      2. when the authorities called his phone?
      3.  when the authorities called her phone? Why did the call apparently go through to his phone (which was on silent for at least part of the day) but she didn't answer her phone?
6. When in the climb was a crime committed, if a crime was committed?
   1. When they left the car?
   2. When they reached the base of the route, presumably behind schedule?
   3. At the "Frühstücksplatzl " (breakfast spot), which the indictment says is the spot they should have turned back at?
   4. At any one of the 14ish belays on the route?
      1. is retreat feasible from any of those belays? 
      2. Was there an obvious point after which retreat became more difficult or impossible? if so, was that point marked on their topo?
   5. When night fell?
   6. When they stopped making upward progress?
   7. When her condition began to deteriorate? Or at some point as she continued to deteriorate?
      1. what was his state as she began to decline?
   8. when the helicopter flew over them the first time?
   9. the second time?
   10. When he put his cell phone on silent?
       1. the reporting on this point is a little ambiguous; was the phone on silent for the whole day and he never pulled it out? Or did he silence the phone only after the helicopters flew over or only after the authorities tried to reach them?
   11. When he left her?
       1. what were his chances if he had stayed with her until morning? What were hers?
   12. When he left her, but without covering her with the emergency blanket and/or bivy sack?

At first read (and, indeed, after subsequent reads), the story is damning. We all are familiar with the trope of the overstoked boyfriend leading his inexperienced girlfriend into an adventure for which neither are really prepared. I've seen that dynamic in real life, I'm sure most of you have as well; it almost never ends like this. 

But the prosecution is going to have to prove that the experience gap was so large that he was responsible for them continuing up past the point of no return, that he had some level of awareness that continuing was risking her life, and that those choices were the cause of her death. 

The facts about not responding to the helicopter and leaving her without a bivy sack* are hard to read, knowing how the story ends. But those actions came almost at the end of the day, when it was the decisions made in the warmth and comfort of home that set them up for failure (route choice, gear choice, failure to understand the forecast, setting the alarm too late, etc, etc.)? (But climbers make poor, even stupid, route and gear and weather decisions all the time; sometimes they die; sometimes their partners die; it's almost never charged as a crime; why is this different?) Did the truly awful parts come too late to save her, even if had done something different? Does it matter? Can we infer from his apparently callous decision making late in the day that his decision-making (assuming we need only focus on his decisions, not hers) early in the day were equally negligent and self-serving? If so, does that retroactively transform his poor decisions into criminal decisions?

Even if all those facts and questions can be answered in a way that puts him in a terrible light, criminal charges still leave me uncomfortable. I have questions about how a rule established by this precedent might play out in the future: In a non-professional relationship, is it a crime to get in over your head? When you take an inexperienced person out, are you exposing yourself to criminal charges if things go bad? Should you really go to jail for your partner's boot choices? Did fear of being shamed for calling for a rescue play a role? Is the prosecutor's office the right body to decide whether to bring a tent or a sleeping bag on a given climb? Do you have a duty to call for a rescue when night falls and you can't continue?

Maybe, in this case, charges are warranted, and can be proven. But after thinking about this for way too long, I'm mostly just sad. 

*I've been trying to think of a way to offer a defense of the bivy sack/blanket decision and I really can't. It only makes sense if he was thinking that she was so far gone that the sack wouldn't have made a difference, and he wanted to increase the odds that at least one person survived. But in that case, why take both the blanket and the sack? And if he thought there were a chance he would just get stuck and need the sack/blanket, why not stay put with her? And if the goal was to go get help, why not call the authorities on the working phone, when you know they're aware of you? Maybe it's defensible if he was so hypothermic that he was incapable of making decisions; but he was still able to finish the climb and hike for several hours, which indicates that he wasn't in completely terrible shape. Maybe he completely forgot they had these items with them (which is, itself, inexcusable)? This is the fact that, for me, pushes this story over the line from "stupid tragedy" to "maybe there really was a crime here". But I will grant that perhaps, at trial, he will provide a non-incriminating explanation. 

Nkane 1wrote:

This is, obviously, a horrible tragedy and my heart goes out to the victim and her family.

I have questions; I don't know if we'll ever know their answers. We have some news articles and an indictment; the indictment is in German and is necessarily going to tell a one sided story. Here's a Google translated summary: oe24.at/oesterreich/chronik…;

But criminal liability is a high bar. Not an impossible bar, but a high one.

My sense is that in order to establish a level of criminal responsibility, the prosecution is going to need to establish something like this:

1. Something about the relationship between these two people made the guy responsible for both of their actions, to the point where responsibility for the outcome rests with him, not both of them collectively, or her alone; 
2. The guy made choices that were well outside the bounds of acceptable mountaineering practices; and
3. Those choices were the cause of her death;
4. or, perhaps there is evidence of something more intentional: that he prevented her from turning back, or prevented her from calling for help. But the reporting doesn't seem to support that interpretation, yet. 

 Some questions I would want to know the answers to before deciding that a non-professional climber was criminally liable for the death of his partner:

1. What was the victim's experience level?
   1. Did she ever participate in trips/climbs by herself or with other friends or romantic partners or clubs/groups, or only with this guy? 
   2. Did she ever plan trips for herself, or with other friends/partners/groups?
   3. Did she have any formal mountaineering training? First aid training?
   4. Did she have any winter mountaineering experience? 
2. What was the guy's experience level? Did he have formal training? What did other partners say about his preparation, mindset, fitness, experience, and decision making skills?
3. What was their relationship dynamic like?
4. What communication occurred between the two in the days prior to the climb? Who did the planning, who picked out the gear, who picked the route? who packed the food? What guidebook/resources did they review? did she look at them, or only him?
   1. what was the forecast, did they check it (and when), and did they both check it?
5. What communication occurred between them on the climb?
   1. Did she ever express a wish to turn around? did he?
   2. Did she exhibit signs of hypothermia, and when in the climb did she begin to show those signs?
   3. Did he exhibit signs of hypothermia, and when?
   4. How much did either of them eat during the day? drink?
   5. what was the communication between them at each of the key moments in the day: 
      1. when the helicopter flew over them a first time?
         1. and then again?
         2. Why didn't she wave when the helicopter flew over them (was she already incapacitated? or did she not know what to do? Or did he tell her not to)?
      2. when the authorities called his phone?
      3.  when the authorities called her phone? Why did the call apparently go through to his phone (which was on silent for at least part of the day) but she didn't answer her phone?
6. When in the climb was a crime committed, if a crime was committed?
   1. When they left the car?
   2. When they reached the base of the route, presumably behind schedule?
   3. At the "Frühstücksplatzl " (breakfast spot), which the indictment says is the spot they should have turned back at?
   4. At any one of the 14ish belays on the route?
      1. is retreat feasible from any of those belays? 
      2. Was there an obvious point after which retreat became more difficult or impossible? if so, was that point marked on their topo?
   5. When night fell?
   6. When they stopped making upward progress?
   7. When her condition began to deteriorate? Or at some point as she continued to deteriorate?
      1. what was his state as she began to decline?
   8. when the helicopter flew over them the first time?
   9. the second time?
   10. When he put his cell phone on silent?
       1. the reporting on this point is a little ambiguous; was the phone on silent for the whole day and he never pulled it out? Or did he silence the phone only after the helicopters flew over or only after the authorities tried to reach them?
   11. When he left her?
       1. what were his chances if he had stayed with her until morning? What were hers?
   12. When he left her, but without covering her with the emergency blanket and/or bivy sack?

At first read (and, indeed, after subsequent reads), the story is damning. We all are familiar with the trope of the overstoked boyfriend leading his inexperienced girlfriend into an adventure for which neither are really prepared. I've seen that dynamic in real life, I'm sure most of you have as well; it almost never ends like this. 

But the prosecution is going to have to prove that the experience gap was so large that he was responsible for them continuing up past the point of no return, that he had some level of awareness that continuing was risking her life, and that those choices were the cause of her death. 

The facts about not responding to the helicopter and leaving her without a bivy sack* are hard to read, knowing how the story ends. But those actions came almost at the end of the day, when it was the decisions made in the warmth and comfort of home that set them up for failure (route choice, gear choice, failure to understand the forecast, setting the alarm too late, etc, etc.)? (But climbers make poor, even stupid, route and gear and weather decisions all the time; sometimes they die; sometimes their partners die; it's almost never charged as a crime; why is this different?) Did the truly awful parts come too late to save her, even if had done something different? Does it matter? Can we infer from his apparently callous decision making late in the day that his decision-making (assuming we need only focus on his decisions, not hers) early in the day were equally negligent and self-serving? If so, does that retroactively transform his poor decisions into criminal decisions?

Even if all those facts and questions can be answered in a way that puts him in a terrible light, criminal charges still leave me uncomfortable. I have questions about how a rule established by this precedent might play out in the future: In a non-professional relationship, is it a crime to get in over your head? When you take an inexperienced person out, are you exposing yourself to criminal charges if things go bad? Should you really go to jail for your partner's boot choices? Did fear of being shamed for calling for a rescue play a role? Is the prosecutor's office the right body to decide whether to bring a tent or a sleeping bag on a given climb? Do you have a duty to call for a rescue when night falls and you can't continue?

Maybe, in this case, charges are warranted, and can be proven. But after thinking about this for way too long, I'm mostly just sad. 

*I've been trying to think of a way to offer a defense of the bivy sack/blanket decision and I really can't. It only makes sense if he was thinking that she was so far gone that the sack wouldn't have made a difference, and he wanted to increase the odds that at least one person survived. But in that case, why take both the blanket and the sack? And if he thought there were a chance he would just get stuck and need the sack/blanket, why not stay put with her? And if the goal was to go get help, why not call the authorities on the working phone, when you know they're aware of you? Maybe it's defensible if he was so hypothermic that he was incapable of making decisions; but he was still able to finish the climb and hike for several hours, which indicates that he wasn't in completely terrible shape. Maybe he completely forgot they had these items with them (which is, itself, inexcusable)? This is the fact that, for me, pushes this story over the line from "stupid tragedy" to "maybe there really was a crime here". But I will grant that perhaps, at trial, he will provide a non-incriminating explanation. 

Remember this is in Germany, not the US, so a different legal system, with different rules. I believe that it was stated earlier in the thread that certain Alpine countries, possibly including Germany, have specific laws dealing with what constitutes potential illegal conduct in mountaineering situations, so all those questions that you asked may well be either very relevant or totally irrelevant under their legal system. Clearly though, under that system, the local prosecutor had sufficient grounds to at least bring charges, which suggests that the reported behavior crossed the threshold there from incompetence to potential criminality.

Utah Hiker Rescued With His Children Faces Abuse and Torture Charges

The man was initially hailed for his efforts to protect his daughter, 8, and two sons, 4 and 2, but the authorities concluded that he put them at risk by taking them on perilous terrain.

Links for those with a NYTimes subscription or a local news story.

Nkane 1wrote:

I have questions; I don't know if we'll ever know their answers. We have some news articles and an indictment; the indictment is in German and is necessarily going to tell a one sided story. Here's a Google translated summary: oe24.at/oesterreich/chronik…;

But criminal liability is a high bar. Not an impossible bar, but a high one.

My sense is that in order to establish a level of criminal responsibility, the prosecution is going to need to establish something like this:

1. Something about the relationship between these two people made the guy responsible for both of their actions, to the point where responsibility for the outcome rests with him, not both of them collectively, or her alone; 
2. The guy made choices that were well outside the bounds of acceptable mountaineering practices ... 

My main questions are:
- What has happened in one and a half hour between the last helicopter overflow at 10:30 PM (when this woman was supposedly OK) and a midnight when she has collapsed?
- Have they ever been together on a long hike/climb in winter conditions?
- Has this woman known how to properly pace herself for a long day of work in winter conditions?

To answer Nkane1 : I’m not a lawyer, I just play one on MP, but my guess is the criminal stupidity started when he left her “to get help”, then didn’t get help.  

This is the thing that makes you go Hmmmm.   Why did he leave her in the first place?  What “help” was he getting in the wee hours of the night?  He’s a dangerously stupid dumbass at best, and a homicidal criminal at worst.  He should have simply stayed, called for help, and they huddled together with the gear they had until it arrived.  No biggie.  Unpleasant, cold bivvies are de Rigeur in the alpine.  If it’s true he had survival gear with him and he left her exposed, as he skipped off, then he has no defense whatsoever.  Case closed. 

Mark Pilatewrote:

To answer Nkane1 : I’m not a lawyer, I just play one on MP, but my guess is the criminal stupidity started when he left her “to get help”, then didn’t get help.  

This is the thing that makes you go Hmmmm.   Why did he leave her in the first place?  What “help” was he getting in the wee hours of the night?  He’s a dangerously stupid dumbass at best, and a homicidal criminal at worst.  He should have simply stayed, called for help, and they huddled together with the gear they had until it arrived.  No biggie.  Unpleasant, cold bivvies are de Rigeur in the alpine.  If it’s true he had survival gear with him and he left her exposed, as he skipped off, then he has no defense whatsoever.  Case closed. 

100%. Leaving your partner w a bivy and any kind of emergency warmth keeping gear to get help is one thing. Leaving your partner fully exposed at midnight. Nahhhhhh 

Alan Rubinwrote:

Remember this is in Germany, not the US, so a different legal system, with different rules. I believe that it was stated earlier in the thread that certain Alpine countries, possibly including Germany, have specific laws dealing with what constitutes potential illegal conduct in mountaineering situations, so all those questions that you asked may well be either very relevant or totally irrelevant under their legal system. Clearly though, under that system, the local prosecutor had sufficient grounds to at least bring charges, which suggests that the reported behavior crossed the threshold there from incompetence to potential criminality.

To build on what Alan said, we simply don’t have the facts or legal context to work this out here. But, In a general sense, criminal liability could exist here in the sense that what happened was so negligent or reckless that we (society) hold people  criminally accountable for it even though they probably did not intend the person to die OR what happened was so negligent or reckless that’s it not believable the person acted without the intent that the person die. The latter would usually have to be supported by additional evidence that the prosecutor would probably wait to release until they had to.

This is where society, 1st world problem type, have been heading for years.  As a libertarian and professed member of the animal kingdom I find this case disappointing.  From a prosecutorial perspective, it is definitely a waste of resources that should be invested at protecting society at large.  But hey, keep trying to prosecute your way to a perfect world that has never and will never exist.  Shit happens  Adults are responsible for their own choices even if that choice includes following somebody who you enjoy being intimate with up a mountain, ill equipped, as they make bad decisions.  Everyone complains we have enough lawyers, hell, looks like we are going to need a ton more.

Dow Williamswrote:

This is where society, 1st world problem type, have been heading for years.  As a libertarian and professed member of the animal kingdom I find this case disappointing.  From a prosecutorial perspective, it is definitely a waste of resources that should be invested at protecting society at large.  But hey, keep trying to prosecute your way to a perfect world that has never and will never exist.  Shit happens  Adults are responsible for their own choices even if that choice includes following somebody who you enjoy being intimate with up a mountain, ill equipped, as they make bad decisions.  Everyone complains we have enough lawyers, hell, looks like we are going to need a ton more.

What if this was intentional and not just bad decision making? How would you suggest making that determination?

I don’t have enough pertinent details to accurately render judgement here, but It’s interesting to me that Austrian law seems to support the idea that an adult woman lacked the agency to break off a climb or personally call for a rescue. From the info that I’ve seen, the guy definitely made many poor decisions and maybe had malicious intentions, but both participants in this saga demonstrated massive hubris when they set out on this climb when they did and knowing the conditions on this mountain. Cases like this seem like they could lead to a massive slippery slope situation where any incident could lead to civil or criminal liabilitIes. 

Dow Williamswrote:

This is where society, 1st world problem type, have been heading for years.  As a libertarian and professed member of the animal kingdom I find this case disappointing.  From a prosecutorial perspective, it is definitely a waste of resources that should be invested at protecting society at large.  But hey, keep trying to prosecute your way to a perfect world that has never and will never exist.  Shit happens  Adults are responsible for their own choices even if that choice includes following somebody who you enjoy being intimate with up a mountain, ill equipped, as they make bad decisions.  Everyone complains we have enough lawyers, hell, looks like we are going to need a ton more.

So, Dow, since it is common knowledge that some people, despite laws to the contrary, will drive under the influence of alcohol or drugs, does that mean that if a driver so impaired causes a fatal accident to someone else who happens to be driving that evening, the impaired driver should get off free because the victim took that risk?

Yeah, I understand that there are differences in the specifics of both situations, but your basic philosophy appears to cover them both.

Again, we don't know the actual facts known to the prosecutor, nor do we know the relevant German laws; but, to me and from what I know, while, as in many accident scenarios, there was a chain of events and decisions, the primary culpability seems to be in the actions the survivor took ( on didn't take) once the situation reached a critical level. I do think it appropriate that 'society' act to control or prevent certain levels of potentially egregious conduct, in such situations as in this case, as in laws concerning impaired driving.

Daniel, "slippery slope" is definitely an 'interesting' phrase to use in this situation!!! In New Hampshire there is a law that folks who show a certain level of gross negligence or recklessness in the mountains can be fined and required to pay some or all of the costs of the search and rescue ( and, as anywhere, in certain circumstances could be charged criminally). This 'fine' isn't imposed gratuitously for any incident requiring SAR, just those where it is clear that the behavior involved was outside normally accepted standards--it seems to have been very ' judiciously' applied in practice, despite the risks that concern you ( and me).

Alan Rubinwrote:

So, Dow, since it is common knowledge that some people, despite laws to the contrary, will drive under the influence of alcohol or drugs, does that mean that if a driver so impaired causes a fatal accident to someone else who happens to be driving that evening, the impaired driver should get off free because the victim took that risk?

Yeah, I understand that there are differences in the specifics of both situations, but your basic philosophy appears to cover them both.

Again, we don't know the actual facts known to the prosecutor, nor do we know the relevant German laws; but, to me and from what I know, while, as in many accident scenarios, there was a chain of events and decisions, the primary culpability seems to be in the actions the survivor took ( on didn't take) once the situation reached a critical level. I do think it appropriate that 'society' act to control or prevent certain levels of potentially egregious conduct, in such situations as in this case, as in laws concerning impaired driving.

Daniel, "slippery slope" is definitely an 'interesting' phrase to use in this situation!!! In New Hampshire there is a law that folks who show a certain level of gross negligence or recklessness in the mountains can be fined and required to pay some or all of the costs of the search and rescue ( and, as anywhere, in certain circumstances could be charged criminally). This 'fine' isn't imposed gratuitously for any incident requiring SAR, just those where it is clear that the behavior involved was outside normally accepted standards--it seems to have been very ' judiciously' applied in practice, despite the risks that concern you ( and me).

Hi Alan, good points. For me the difference in your impaired driving example is that the victim of the impaired driver had no choice or willfully acted to be injured by the impaired driver. To me, the impaired driver is solely responsible and should be held accountable for their actions. 

I understand and support sanctions (fines) being levied against ill prepared people whose negligence results in an incident requiring rescue. I do maintain my questioning of how to discern true malice or negligence when two consenting adults are involved in an incident that they willfully participated in. Human behavior sure is a complex matter. 

would it be a crime if it happened on Everest?

Daniel Shivelywrote:

I understand and support sanctions (fines) being levied against ill prepared people whose negligence results in an incident requiring rescue. I do maintain my questioning of how to discern true malice or negligence when two consenting adults are involved in an incident that they willfully participated in. Human behavior sure is a complex matter. 

That's why we have such things as laws, courts, trials---sometimes criminal. sometimes civil (lawsuits), sometimes both; to sort out these 'complexities'. I agree with you and Dow, that not everything needs to he, nor should be, resolved through the legal system and that individual responsibility ( at least when all involved are adults and otherwise legally competent). definitely is an important factor, but there are definitely situations where it is appropriate for 'society' to become involved--we can reasonably differ as to what some of those situations are. The legal system is slow, cumbersome, expensive, not always fair, and doesn't always reach the 'correct' result---but, at least in an honest system, far better than vendetta and anarchy.

Eli Chasewrote:

would it be a crime if it happened on Everest?

No, more of a route marker.

I may have missed it but I haven't seen this point made in full yet and I'm surprised. Marc touched on it but I think that a clearer articulation would be:

Leaving her to go get help was nonsensical since help was already getting to her as quickly as humanly possible

Leaving a partner in dire straits to go get help is something you do when there is no other way to raise the alarm and point SAR to the right location

In this case, based on the reporting, emergency services had line of sight to their location all along. He ignored and/or waived off their offers of help and finally called for it much later than he should have but once that was done, he knew that help was going to get to her (and him) as fast as feasible.

The only reasonable course of action in this case should have been to hunker down with her in as sheltered a spot as could be contrived, share warmth inside a bivy bag and wait for SAR

Of course, leaving a partner in dire straits can also be done if staying with them will most likely not increase their chances of survival and will greatly decrease your own but, again, based on the reporting and his reasoning for leaving her, that was far from being the case

Don’t know either of the two.

Never been in that area. Sure looks like a proud winter line up to the summit.

Setting aside his (and her) mistakes for the moment:  I have been mountaineering for decades, since I was a teenager. Several times, I pushed myself to the point of being at least pre-hypothermic. One of the recent times, my partner and I were lucky to escape with a little frostbite. Him in the skin over a cheek bone and me covering most of one heel plus a spot under the ball of a foot.

Of course, these occasions were typically on long days that gambled with extension well into the night, in the mountains carrying everything on our backs. A common theme to these was scarcity: little food, ran out of water long ago, no artificial source of heat, near or below freezing conditions, usually thinking we had carried just enough layers to survive the night yet far from comfortably so. Ambition was of course also part of these.

Some of these times, I was surprised at how quickly I went from making steady progress to having a body nearly unusable due to deep spasmodic shivers - to the point that even just being able to safely drive back to civilization was questionable.

All from mistakes in judgment, no doubt. And Never once wanting to call for rescue despite having cell coverage the time of the frost bite.

On to gender differences: Many of us have seen sleeping bags with a lower temperature rating for men than women. I think for half of my life I did not appreciate that difference. Unsure if her surviving partner did. Not knowing can impact expectations of your partner, including what conditions they can withstand without them having more layers than me. I have relied greatly on my women partners to know how many layers they needed to carry. This was a relatively young mountaineering couple.

I can say I never left my partner in these kinds of conditions, even though a self-ish thought or two may have crept in those times with a slower, more indecisive partner.

I look forward to hearing more from the trial - if he goes through with it.

Austrian climber found guilty after girlfriend froze to death on mountain

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c0k1xkllknmo 

Gymnogenewrote:

Austrian climber found guilty after girlfriend froze to death on mountain

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c0k1xkllknmo 

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c0k1xkllknmo

Interesting snip:

It (the court) said it also took into account "the public discussion on social media, which was incriminating for the defendant".