The accident happened at 5:20 p.m .: the breath alcohol concentration measurements were taken about an hour later.

The accident happened at 5:20 p.m .: the breath alcohol concentration measurements were taken about an hour later. The place where the alcohol was consumed was a bar by the water in Reifnitz, from where the boat trip started.

When calculating the degree of alcoholism, the expert takes into account a “statistically determined range” and “three conversion factors”.

Result: If the most favorable factor was used, the media manager’s blood alcohol at the time of the accident was between 1.062 and 1.162 per thousand; in the worst case between 1.57 and 1.67 per thousand. The report also states: “If at the time of the accident the remaining amount of rum, which is supposed to have been drunk in one gulp, had not yet been absorbed, 0.18 per mille would have to be deducted for the assumed 4 cl rum and then this would result in the best case (…) a blood alcohol concentration of 0.882 per mille “.

Translated this means: The media manager has apparently stated that the alcohol drunk in one train in the accident had not yet been absorbed by the body and had an effect.

Drank more?

In his expertise, the expert calculates further possible drinking options and deducts “absorption losses” of 20 percent for food intake. Conclusion: “Accordingly, there is a clear discrepancy between the drinking information and the measurements of the breath alcohol concentration at 6:20 p.m. and 6:21 p.m. on June 2nd, 2017.” In the case of a “blood alcohol concentration of 1.062 per thousand in the best case”, the expert concludes that “the drinks supposedly consumed cannot explain the breath alcohol concentration at the time of measurement (…)”. And he states: “People used to alcohol cannot show any noticeable signs of alcoholism with the alcohol concentrations listed above.” A very favorable statement for the co-accused skipper, who had passed the wheel to the media manager before the accident.

However, it is clear: “The incomprehensible drinking quantities given by (…) would mean that at the time of the accident there was no significant alcohol effect.”

With at least 1.062 per mille, the question arises whether the media manager stated less in the alcohol test than actually drunk. Or did he still have residual alcohol in his blood from the night before? Because he is said to have been a guest in the VIP club of the Klagenfurt Wörthersee Stadium at the soccer cup final between Red Bull Salzburg and Rapid Wien.

What is the next step in the cause? At the time of going to press it was still unclear when the Klagenfurt public prosecutor would make a decision as to whether the criminal investigation into suspected “negligent homicide under particularly dangerous circumstances” would actually lead to legal proceedings. If so, it would probably take at least two to three months to start the process. Markus Kitz from the Klagenfurt public prosecutor’s office says: “The time horizon depends on any additions that need to be answered and any further investigations that may result from them.” So far, the public prosecutor has commissioned five reports; the accused are free to submit additional private reports.

Lawyer counters

In response to a request from News, the lawyer for the media manager said that “from a defense perspective, the reports obtained so far do not yet provide a plausible and conclusive picture of the actual course of the accident”. “They will therefore have to be supplemented or specified more precisely in core areas, taking into account further evidence.” The additional questions are currently being worked out and then brought to the public prosecutor’s office. “It has not yet been determined whether a private opinion will be presented,” says the lawyer.

At the moment, only one thing is certain: there will be no trial before the election.

Wörthersee – News reported

“Ministerial order” after a boat accident?

Wörthersee: Expert’s word

Death in the Wörthersee: investigations in the final

The witnesses from the Wörthersee

Wörthersee: boat trip to death

The accident occurred on June 2 in front of Maria Wörth (Klagenfurt-Land district). There were a total of five people on board, four friends from Lower Austria and the 32-year-old boat operator as the representative of the boat owner, a Carinthian entrepreneur. The boat was heading west when the 44-year-old driver from the Waldviertel made a few sharp turns, according to eyewitnesses. The entrepreneur of the same age from the Weinviertel went overboard. There are different statements about what happened afterwards. The witnesses who observed the incident from the bank said that the boat was then reversed.

The victim was only recovered in the morning by divers from a depth of 30 meters, a first search operation had to be canceled due to a thunderstorm. The public prosecutor’s office initiated a preliminary investigation on suspicion of grossly negligent homicide. In addition to the Lower Austrian, the accused is also the 32-year-old Carinthian who, as a boat driver, left the wheel to the 44-year-old.

News is the final report. You can read the results of the report in the current issue of News 39/17.

Read news for 1 month now for free! * * The test ends automatically.

More on this ▶


Win true wireless earphones from JBL now! (

New access (

8 reasons why it’s great to be single (

Salmon shrimp burger with wasabi mayonnaise and honey cucumber (

In the new trend: Shock-Down – how long can the economy withstand lockdowns? (

The 35 best family series to laugh and feel good (

E-Scooter in Vienna: All providers and prices 2020 in comparison (

Exclusive: The final report on the fatal boat accident on the


from June 2nd is ready and delivered to the accused. It puts the prominent boat operator under pressure and shakes his statements.

The boat accident has been preoccupying the Republic for almost four months: on June 2, a Lower Austrian building contractor was killed in a rapid cornering on Lake Wörthersee; The boat was steered by a prominent media manager under the influence of alcohol – a tragic accident. However, more and more appeared successively

Inconsistencies in the cause: a sparse flow of information from the executive, apparently sluggish investigations, contradicting witness statements, alleged cover-up attempts and instructions have ensured that the rumor mill has been simmering ever since. Not least because the boat handlebar, whose name cannot be mentioned for media law reasons, is well known to Interior Minister Wolfgang Sobotka. This denied any influence name.

News was the first to report material aspects of the incident that were not mentioned in the first official account. These details now seem to be confirmed: The final report on the case is exclusively available to news – and it shows what in all probability actually happened on this early summer Friday afternoon.

According to the report that was leaked to News, the media manager did not only cause the accident at high speed. Then he reacted wrongly: with a fatal outcome.

Several measurement runs

But first things first: The expert opinion was drawn up by the renowned Linz expert Hermann Steffan, an internationally active specialist in damage and accident analyzes in the areas of boating, shipping and road traffic. He subjected the previously made testimony as well as technical and medical reports to a plausibility check. For this purpose, several measurement trips were made with the accident boat on August 14th in Reifnitz. It is a Malibu Response TXI with a length of 6.28 meters, a width of .37 meters, a weight of just over 1,300 kilos and 335 hp. The boat was in its original condition when tested; However, the propeller damaged in the accident was exchanged for a new one of the same construction.

In total, test drives were carried out for about an hour – at speeds of 40, 50 and 60 kilometers per hour. In addition, the maximum speed of the boat was determined: This was 67 kilometers per hour.

The decisive question was how the accident happened and how credible the statements of the main suspect and the witnesses who came along are. According to the report, the media manager had stated that “the fatally injured person intervened in the steering wheel”. The defense strategy is obvious: in this case, the victim would at least be partly to blame for their own death.

In short: This variant is not tenable for the expert. According to the expert opinion, it was not completely impossible for the fatally injured builder, who was around 1.78 meters tall, to reach into the steering wheel from a seated position on the bonnet – but: “It turns out that the steering wheel can only be reached if at all you sit on the front edge of the cover. Even then, the steering wheel can hardly be reached, and only with your arms outstretched, “says the report. And further: “It is important to consider that the steering wheel has to be turned almost two revolutions here before the full lock is reached.” And this is “practically impossible from this distance, where the steering wheel can never be optimally attacked.”

Incorrect information?

If that is true, the boat operator would have given incorrect information. He would be allowed to do this as a suspect in criminal proceedings, after all, nobody has to incriminate himself. It should be mentioned, however, that the media manager is at least sitting on a ticket from the state of Lower Austria on the supervisory board of an important infrastructure company – and thus practically holds a public function.

Another rumored statement by the boat driver is also questioned by the expert – namely that he himself fell into the water. An important point in the report relates to the centrifugal forces that act on the boat occupants when cornering.

With regard to the risk of “people being thrown out of the motorboat”, the report states: “The driver’s seat itself is (…) so low that when seated in the boat it is practically impossible for the driver to be accidentally thrown out of the boat especially because he can stop at the steering wheel. “

In addition, a computer simulation was carried out, whereby it was assumed that the boat driver did not hold on to the steering wheel and was also sitting in the bucket seat in such a way that he did not use the bucket effect of the seat by leaning forward slightly. Result: Even then, the media manager is thrown out of the seat, but comes to lie on the floor in the area next to the passenger seat. “A being thrown out of the boat cannot be explained in this way,” says the report. That contradicts the alleged statement of the media manager.

But how did the accident actually go according to the report? In summary, the course of the accident for expert Steffan in connection with the statements of all those involved can only be explained as follows: “The motorboat must have made a quite massive right turn, whereby the later fatally injured person was obviously first thrown out of the boat to the left can only be explained in practice that it was sitting relatively upright on the hood, to the left of the pull rod (). ” It is “impossible” that this “was caught by the propeller of the boat in the course of falling out.” Because: “As soon as the fatally injured person falls into the water, the body is immediately braked massively and the boat moves away from the possible point of impact. It is completely impossible that the injured person is run over like this.”

Fatal error?

According to the expert opinion, the builder was not immediately caught or run over by the propeller. Then how did he die? Everything indicates that the boat driver was not only drunk and carried out a breakneck maneuver, but also made a fatal mistake. A mistake that, according to the expert opinion, must not occur under any circumstances.

The expert assumes the following sequence: “After the fatally injured person fell out of the boat, someone must have engaged reverse gear and then the fatally injured person must have been caught by the propeller while the boat was being driven backwards – at a time when when his head was still under water. ” According to the coroner, “there was a period of 30 seconds to one minute between falling in () and being caught by the propeller”. “This period also means that reverse gear cannot have been engaged before the victim fell into the water,” writes the expert. He specifically points out an obvious misconduct in the “man overboard maneuver”: In such a case, if the person who has fallen overboard is certainly no longer in the vicinity of the boat, a turn would have to be carried out at a very slow speed – and only when the person is visible and driving over can be ruled out. And: “Engaging reverse gear is absolutely forbidden.”

According to the expert’s conclusion, the accident happened while cornering at a speed of around 60 kilometers per hour. As a reminder: That is just below the determined maximum speed of 67 km / h. According to the report, the reverse gear was engaged “at least with a higher speed” – after the later fatally injured person fell into the water. The expert underpinned the reverse drive with the condition and direction of rotation of the propeller, which was “clearly bent at all three ends”. Since the boat worked perfectly until the accident, the damage to the propeller could only have occurred as a result of the accident.

According to the damage, “the result is that the propeller was almost certainly rotating backwards,” the report continues. And: “From a technical point of view, it also means that reverse gear on the boat still had to be engaged at a time when the fatal injuries had not yet occurred.”

From a technical point of view, the expert ruled out a variant in which the fatally injured person would still have intervened in the steering wheel. Likewise, the possibility that the casualty himself could have taken the return gear before falling into the water: “It is not possible to touch the gear lever itself at all – from a sitting position in the middle.”