Victims and Case Files > Witness Testimonies
Interview with Nurse Pelageya Ivanovna
Star man:
--- Quote from: mk on January 16, 2021, 07:39:38 AM ---
--- Quote from: sarapuk on January 09, 2021, 12:55:52 PM ---Well put, sort of.
--- End quote ---
Actually, it wasn't well put at all. But we'll let that pass.
--- Quote --- In a Court of Law whilst eyewitness statements are important its only a part of the process. A case cannot be Judged properly on the basis of an eyewitness alone. Otherwise just think of the number of false claims people would be making. And eyewitness statements half a Century after the Event have to be taken very carefully and maybe with a good pinch of salt.
--- End quote ---
I don't think anyone is trying to build a new case--or judge an old one--solely on the basis of one old lady's testimony. We are trying to fit one old lady's testimony into its proper place as a piece of the puzzle. Some of us believe it should be carefully considered in its entirety before flinging it aside, and this is a thread for that purpose.
Others seem to think that her age and the fact that her husband brushes aside her words are indication enough that she is misremembering.
That doesn't happen to be enough for me, but I don't mind that others think it is. I can certainly see their point.
--- End quote ---
I think you are correct to consider her statement carefully. For much of what she says there doesn't seem to be any confusion, and where she is not sure she says so. Also, if her recollection is wrong then there should not be so much that contradicts the case files, in a consistent way.
Regards
Star man
mk:
--- Quote from: Star man on January 16, 2021, 04:57:00 PM ---I think you are correct to consider her statement carefully. For much of what she says there doesn't seem to be any confusion, and where she is not sure she says so. Also, if her recollection is wrong then there should not be so much that contradicts the case files, in a consistent way.
--- End quote ---
One thing that doesn't seem to fit is the bitten knuckle with skin found in the mouth. If she had cleaned & the doctor had "described" the corpses before hand, surely the skin wouldn't have remained in the mouth?
sarapuk:
--- Quote from: mk on January 17, 2021, 07:22:48 AM ---
--- Quote from: Star man on January 16, 2021, 04:57:00 PM ---I think you are correct to consider her statement carefully. For much of what she says there doesn't seem to be any confusion, and where she is not sure she says so. Also, if her recollection is wrong then there should not be so much that contradicts the case files, in a consistent way.
--- End quote ---
One thing that doesn't seem to fit is the bitten knuckle with skin found in the mouth. If she had cleaned & the doctor had "described" the corpses before hand, surely the skin wouldn't have remained in the mouth?
--- End quote ---
Well bodies are usualy cleaned to a certain degree before the actual Autopsy, and presumably it was so in 1959. I would have thought that even after a bit of a clean up skin tissue could be found in the mouth.
Star man:
--- Quote from: mk on January 17, 2021, 07:22:48 AM ---
--- Quote from: Star man on January 16, 2021, 04:57:00 PM ---I think you are correct to consider her statement carefully. For much of what she says there doesn't seem to be any confusion, and where she is not sure she says so. Also, if her recollection is wrong then there should not be so much that contradicts the case files, in a consistent way.
--- End quote ---
One thing that doesn't seem to fit is the bitten knuckle with skin found in the mouth. If she had cleaned & the doctor had "described" the corpses before hand, surely the skin wouldn't have remained in the mouth?
--- End quote ---
I think it would depend on the level of detail that they went into during the cleaning. Would they have looked inside Krivo's mouth? They would have had to resolve any rigor mortis? Another thing to think about is - what we can and cannot trust about the autopsy reports. Clearly, they would have known more than what they said, and some facts are easy to manipulate while others would not be. Lyuda and possibly Semyon' appearance may have been adjusted after they were cleaned. Solter did not say anything about missing eyes and tongues. But she does recall there being two girls brought in within a day or two of each other and 11 bodies in total.
I think you raise a valid question at the right level of detail, but I dont think it undermines Solter's statement. What do you think?
Star man
mk:
--- Quote from: Star man on January 17, 2021, 03:36:43 PM ---I think it would depend on the level of detail that they went into during the cleaning. Would they have looked inside Krivo's mouth? They would have had to resolve any rigor mortis? Another thing to think about is - what we can and cannot trust about the autopsy reports. Clearly, they would have known more than what they said, and some facts are easy to manipulate while others would not be. Lyuda and possibly Semyon' appearance may have been adjusted after they were cleaned. Solter did not say anything about missing eyes and tongues. But she does recall there being two girls brought in within a day or two of each other and 11 bodies in total.
I think you raise a valid question at the right level of detail, but I dont think it undermines Solter's statement. What do you think?
--- End quote ---
I wasn't really thinking as far as undermining either Solter's statement or the autopsy. I was just trying to figure out whether the two statements (1) were actually in conflict with each other, or whether it's just my lack of understanding about the procedures, and (2) if they are in conflict, can they be reconciled by changing my perspective or adding information... or does it mean that one or the other is false.
It dawns on me that perhaps I should explain my own "procedure". Many people here seem to work on a shortened version of the scientific method: Make up a hypothesis, see if anything contradicts it; change the hypothesis, see if anything contradicts it; on and on. Either that, or the survival-of-the-fittest: two people with opposing views argue it out and the winner gets his view validated. Somehow I don't find it very useful to approach things those ways . (NOT making a point about the usefulness of the scientific method, deductive vs. inductive thinking, or suggesting that my concept of my own innerworkings is inherently better, etc, etc.)
When it comes to situations when there may be a strong incentive to deceive, and my own immediate well-being doesn't depend upon the answers--I tend neither to believe nor disbelieve a person. I don't need to know whether it is True; I just need to recognize that the person has decided to tell me this. Of all the possible things they could have mentioned right now, *this* is what they chose. Think of that! It is so incredibly informative! No matter what the person says, he is making a choice from all the possible things he might say (including staying silent or changing the subject), and that choice reveals something about himself. About his needs, his goals, his values, his desires, his self-image, his perceived public image... Given enough opportunity, all these choices add up and begin to present a clear picture of the person.
When statements seem to contradict each other, even better. It provides a great opportunity to evaluate my own assumptions or the assumptions of the other person. This is where I am with Nurse Pelegeya. I'm looking for contradictions in order to hone or refine my own understanding.
After a while, it becomes fairly clear whether the words & stories are truths, lies, mistakes, or some combination.
Now, with DPI, it is a bit different. There is no further opportunity; we must rely on what has already been said. But quite a lot has been said. Of all the things Maslennikov could have communicated on his radiograms, he spent a surprising amount of time detailing his ideas of how things went down; why was this important to him? The autopsies are so cursory; why? Sharavin has mentioned in two different interviews that the two Yuris by the cedar tree were covered with a brown blanket when he and his buddy found them; why is this important to him? Usually when I open threads, this is what I'm trying to explore--not to race to the final question, "Is this person's idea/report true or false?"
Anyway--not implying that you, Star Man, need a lecture on my thoughts and practices; just thought this might be a good opportunity to explain why I may seem to ignore some things that are very important to others.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version