Ye olde question is : did he recently take out a life insurance policy on her?
this post was submitted on 18 Feb 2026
341 points (99.1% liked)
World News
53971 readers
2740 users here now
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
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.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
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.
I dont really have a good argument one way or the other. Im just glad I'm not part of deciding it
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?
"Are you really going to wear THAT?" is a question that men learn to never ask.
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.
You can't charge someone for lack of advice. The woman has responsibility for her own stupid decisions.
Kind of a grey area, though.
If you see someone out picking mushrooms and they pick a poisonous one and you don't say anything, sure, its not your responsibility.
If you take someone out to pick mushrooms and they pick a poisonous one and you know its poisonous and you let them eat it anyway, that's criminal.
You can't argue that someone that hosts free mushrooms hunting tours into dangerous territory and allows a bunch of amatuers to pick and eat deadly mushrooms isn't liable.
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.
Formalizing an outing with a social/romantic partner to the same degree as a professional guide/tour giver is a disastrous precedent to set
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.'
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(6 replies)
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.
I’d be curious to hear the other side of the story. The phone on silence is what “police allege”, and mobile coverage maps are often exaggerated for marketing, not to mention being in a big storm could affect service.
It’s possible his phone was not working, and he kept going until he got service.
Look, I don't live in Austria, I live in Switzerland, but I'm pretty sure it's similar in our neighbour. The coverage might be true, there aren't actually a lot of places without basic coverage, keep in mind we are both much smaller counties than the US for example. Him not noticing calls seems to me the more likely (good-faith) reason.
Yes. What was the point of him putting his phone on silent? What was the reasoning behind that?
Trying to save battery? Mobile works poorly in mountains.
Airplane mode would save battery. Silent vs loud ringing isn't a significant battery drain.
Silencing a phone does not save battery.
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.
he left her there, his intention of getting rid of her one way or another. on the same post on reddit, people mentioned how he couldve bundled her up, or hid in a place with shelter but he just dumped in her in the middle of the cold and left. he also turned off his phone at some point too.
Her footwear selection (light snowboarding boots) might indicate she’s on the wrong side of the knowledge curve. Dunning Krueger is a bitch sometimes.
Arctic mountains
This one was in central Europe, though.
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?
A friend told me his lifeguard course contained a self defense portion, to avoid being dragged underwater by someone panicking. I can't say the same about my mountaineering experience.
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.
load more comments
(1 replies)
view more: next ›