Victims and Case Files > Witness Testimonies
Interview with Nurse Pelageya Ivanovna
Star man:
--- Quote from: mk on January 17, 2021, 07:59:11 PM ---
--- 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.
--- End quote ---
Seems like a reasonable approach. I agree that there may be issues with some of things that Solter says, and many of the reports available. What I tend to do, is to look at all the available information including any inconsistencies at both a detailed level and within the overall context of the scenario. People mention Occam's razor quite alot, but use it incorrectly. For example, there are multiple discrepancies and actions around the dpi within the detail that suggest that there is something suspicious going on. Then when you take a step back and look at the bigger picture you can also apply a basic Occam's razor style sanity check, to see if those suspicions are well founded. An example is the ravine. What makes the most sense - all of the significant traumas being the result of a single unusual, but devastating event, or multiple unfortunate devastating events all happening to the same group on the same night. The only way that the rav 4 could have sustained those injuries is via a significant fall, but there is nowhere at the ravine near to the bodies where it could happen. So the only other explanation is that they were carried there by someone. By whom? If it was Kolevatov, how did he do it and then sustain a "deformed neck"? This is just a simple example I could go on for hours. When you evaluate Solters statement in this context what she says makes sense.
Regards
Star man
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[*] Previous page
Go to full version