Theories Discussion > Murdered

This murder scenario fits scene

(1/8) > >>

I'm obsessed with this case and came up with this scenario. The 9 were sleeping when one or more was awakened when hearing a commotion outside the tent. The unknown group could have been talking loudly or something like that but it was loud enough to alert at least one hiker who was alarmed because it was night and no one else was on that mountain except the 9 of them. This accounts for the small horizontal slits in the tent that were made with precision. They were used to look out of the tent to see who had suddenly appeared in their vicinity. Because the unknown group was there to cause grevious harm to the hikers, at some point they violently got the hikers out of the tent and forced them down the mountain, likely at gunpoint. This accounts for their being in underclothes and for why they ended up beneath the cedar tree. At this point, they were bound (ligature marks found at autopsy on 2 hikers) and forced to sit on the ground. One of the unknown group forced a hiker (I think it was Dyatlov) to climb the tree and start a fire. This accounts for the broken branches and clothes found in the tree. The unknown group was probably planning on toying with the hikers a while, causing small injuries to some, enjoying instilling unbearable fear in the hikers. When it became clear that they were in danger for their lives, at some point a fight broke out between several hikers and the unknowns. This accounts for the signs of physical fighting found on several hikers at autopsy. When that fight broke out, 2 of the hikers escaped and tried to get back to the tent but were quickly hunted down and killed. Dyatlov himself managed to get away and he followed the route Zina took up to the tent. He was especially protective of her and went to help her but he too was caught and murdered before he could get to her. All hell has broken loose and three of the hikers were tortured, murdered or grevously wounded at the scene and were left for dead or to freeze to death. The other 4 hikers were moved from the scene and brought to the second crime scene where they were abused over a longer period of time and slowly beaten and tortured over the span of several hours or more. This accounts for their injuries being so much more significant than the others. The unknown group took more time with them. The broken ribs, flailed chests, and Ludmilla's tongue was removed here. Eyes could also have been removed here as well but those could have been animal activity in the weeks after they died. The unknown group eventually left the 4, either already dead or dying and injured. Whoever survived the attacks, then froze to death and the unknown group disappeared into the night forever. What this theory misses is: how were chests caved in and crushed to the point that they were but it's possible some kind of unknown weaponry was used, possibly something not seen in traditional Soviet culture or they were stomped on violently and repeatedly. This theory also dismisses the camera's photos as coincidence. One other bit of evidence that will never make sense in any scenario is why one of the 4 who were found at the second crime scene had a pen and notebook on his person. Strange but we will never be able to pinpoint exactly what happened so it's not enough to debunk this theory. Another thought I had is that the strange person that was on the camera that some people think was a Yeti, could have been one of the unknowns seen earlier and photographed by a hiker. Perhaps they knew someone was lurking about that made them nervous and that's why they put their tent on a strange part of the mountain. Again, this might just be a coincidence and the figure was one of them. I would love to hear thoughts and critiques on this theory. After obsessively reading about this case, I cannot come up with another explanation that makes sense in the real world. Barring Yetis and aliens, I think this works. Thoughts?

I also think that the murder theory is by far the most plausible one.


We should stick to the fact instead of theorizing about events that we will never be able to know if and how they happened (cutting the holes in the tent to see who is outside, missing eyes, tongue, pen and notebook etc..), although in general I think your assumptions are probably quite correct.

My opinion is that we should stick to the facts stated in the case files. Particularly with autopsy reports and morgue photos. There is enough evidence there, especially wounds to the sides of their heads, cutaneous wounds, multiple chest fracture lines, burns, symmetric ankle bruises etc.

Perhaps Krivonishenko's burned leg and trousers could provide a good start:).

I agree with you completely, but we as humans who are natural storytellers need that "story" of what/how/who in an unsolved case. Exactly like you said, we will never know all those little details or how they exactly fit into the story but it's not necessary to understand them to get to the crux of the case, which in this case, is clearly sadistic, cold-blooded mass murder. To think otherwise, in my opinion of course, is ignoring the only things we know for sure which is crime scene photos and autopsy reports. The fact that this was officially ruled to be an avalanche scene in 2019 is a disgrace to the victims and their families. It proves that nobody really cares anymore and that's disgraceful.

Because of the shady business of the KGB in the 50s, it is hard to know what is true here or what information we can really rely on so you nailed it when you said, the crime scene photos and autopsies speak for themselves. They certainly are speaking. In fact, they are screaming first degree homicide. Avalanche, my butt.

How were those who got away and tried to return to the tent (Zina and Rustem), and then Igor who went after Zina, killed?

According to the autopsy these 3 had no life-threatening injuries and died of the cold. Rustem did have a fractured skull which is probably post-mortem, I think we shouldn't disregard that their frozen bodies were transported on the floor of a military helicopter from the pass to the morgue, this to me seems like the most likely cause for the skull fracture... there's testimony in the case files (I think... it's a while since I've read it) from someone saying the bodies "rang like glass"


--- Quote from: Manti on January 06, 2022, 08:26:57 PM ---How were those who got away and tried to return to the tent (Zina and Rustem), and then Igor who went after Zina, killed?

According to the autopsy these 3 had no life-threatening injuries and died of the cold. Rustem did have a fractured skull which is probably post-mortem, ..."

--- End quote ---

Zina had a head injury (except of other defensive and cutaneous wounds) that is described in the autopsy report and also in Maslennikov NB (scan 8): "The closest Kolmogorova 500 meters broken head". Even if this injury was not fatal, it could have made her unconscious and she froze to death.

As for Slobodin, how can anyone say that the skull fractures on both of his temples were post mortem? If there would be only one fracture (along the natural skull joint lines), I would say it is possible that it was caused by freezing brain tissues. Also, the pathologist Vozrozhdenny (who made the autopsies) suggested that Slobodin's skull fractures were probably caused by a blunt object.
If you suggest that some of the injuries were caused post-mortem by transportation, I need to say that you can excuse any of their injuries this way, maybe except of rib fractures. This will lead nowhere - if it would be few disputable injuries then fine, but so many? It is a common practice of some members of this forum to label any evidence that does not fit into their theory as being staged/caused by negligence etc.

Dyatlov - his body position in which he was found was not natural, but of course this fact alone cannot point to murder. Dyatlov is the only person who (according to the autopsy report, and if we omit Doroshenko's head burn) did not have a head injury. However, there is a wound in his hair visible on one of the morgue photos. Also, wounds on both ankles suggest that his leg were tied. Cutaneous wound on his palm was probably from a knife (he grabbed a knife blade in defense).

I would also like to point out that if these 3 people would just froze to death, they would have severely frostbitten feet (and possibly also hands), because natural freezing does not happen immediately, and feet/hands go first.. This was not described in the autopsy reports..

And one more thing. The autopsy report of Krivonishenko states that he froze to death, however, his left foot and leg was severely burned (bursting skin, flap skin from burning, charring). Freezing to death and 3rd degree burns somehow don't go together:)


[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

There was an error while thanking
Go to full version