I am in a unique position to ask somebody present at the exhumation questions that will be answered exclusively for DyatlovPass.com. If any of you have question please write them here.
Teddy, are you allowed tell us a bit more about this person? Are they a medical expert that helped with the analyses, or did they simply help with the exhumation of the body? I think a bit more detail might help us to narrow down what kind of questions we ask, but obviously it's understandable if they wish to remain anonymous as well.Hi! Let me answer and sorry for my English )
Teddy, are you allowed tell us a bit more about this person? Are they a medical expert that helped with the analyses, or did they simply help with the exhumation of the body? I think a bit more detail might help us to narrow down what kind of questions we ask, but obviously it's understandable if they wish to remain anonymous as well.Hi! Let me answer and sorry for my English )
I'm a doctor (gp pediatrician) for 20 yeas already. We moved to veintnam in 2007, since that time I have been workin in sos international in Saigon https://www.internationalsos.com/newsroom. I have a privet practice now.
I'm interesting of this story for 5 years.
In 2014-2015 one Russian official forensic expert Eduard Tumanov confirmed some my suppositions about traumas. https://m.kp.ru/daily/26311.5/3189866/ but we didn't have enough information about The ribs fractures for understanding how it was possible to get this injury.
Exhumation gaves answers for some questions. We saw the ribs and understood how each rib was fractured. We established 3 fractures of the R scapula (expert didn't describe this injuries in 1959).
Sergey Nikitin's conclusion is "it was one single impact, Zolotarev was laying on the back at that moment (scapula fractures)"
I don't agree))) I suppose its could be two successive blows. But I'm not expert)
Sergey Nikitin is one of the famous specialist of scull reconstruction and body identification. Please remember, that the main question of the exhumination was identification of body. Not assessment of traumas which regulated by different law. We are lucky that soft tissue is not preservated and we could see the bones in excellent condition. If soft tissue has been preserved we didn't have right to clean bones as well.
Chest injury is a injury of construction, we a looking for a forensic expert specialized in this type of trauma assesment for second opinion.
GS:
По заключению эксперта Никитина это было однократное резкое воздействие предметом на человека, лежачего на спине. Moё мнение, что могло быть и два разных сильных удара. Mы собираемся искать вторые мнения других экспертов.
According to expert Nikitin, this was a one-time sudden impact to a person lying on his back. My opinion is that there could be two different strong blows. We are currently seeking second opinions of other experts.
Ребра ломаются конструкционно за счет определенной гибкости. В точке непосредственного удара будет разгибательный перелом, но ребро будет под несколько изгибаться и на определенном расстоянии возникнет удаленный сгибательный перелом. Вторая линия. При сильном ударе может возникнуть две дополнительные линии, как у Золотарева. Никитин предположил, что раз точка приложения спереди справа от грудины (разгибательные переломы), по подмышечной сформировались конструкционные сгибательные (это точки максимального физиологического изгиба), а лопатка сзади - нет вопросов. Он лежит на спине, что-то давит спереди назад, ломаются кости и спереди и сзади.
И я с этим не согласна. Во первых ни в какой литературе не описывают, что при таком сдавлении лопатка вообще будет ломаться. А во вторых, он не проецировал это на скелет в целом, с учетом взаиморасположения костей относительно друг друга. А у меня получается, то лопатка почему-то ломается там, где ребра не ломаются. Мое мнение, что у Золотарева было ДВА различных удара. Сначала по спине в область вот этого выступающего гребня. Он крепкий, выдержал, но от него вверх и вниз пошли трещины в виде треугольника (вот такой перелом от удара по лопатке описан много где), а потом был второй удар - уже в область груди.
Ribs break down constructively due to a certain flexibility. At the point of direct impact there will be an extensor fracture, but the rib will be slightly bent and at a certain distance there will be a remote flexural fracture forming a second line. With a strong impact, two additional lines may appear as in this case.
Sergey Nikitin, forensic medical expert, says that that as a result of applying force on the front to the right of the sternum (extensor fractures), there will be structural flexion in the axillary line (these are the points of maximum physiological bending), and no questions about the shoulder blade on the back. His theory is that Zolotaryov lies on his back, something presses from front to back, brakes the bones both in front and back. And I do not agree with this. Firstly, it is not mentioned in any literature that as a result of such compression the scapula will break at all. And secondly, Sergey Nikitin did not project this onto the skeleton as a whole, taking into account the position of the bones relative to each other. And then the shoulder blade for some reason breaks where the ribs do not break.
My opinion is that Zolotaryov suffered two different blows. First on the back to the area of the protruding ridge. The ridge is strong, withstood, but from it up and down went the cracks in the form of a triangle (this is the break from the blow on the shoulder and it is described a lot in the literature), and then there was a second blow - in the chest area."
Welp.... I'm guessing two impacts would be a big deal if true. It's like telling all the people in the non-murder camp that their baby is ugly.
To be honest, for understanding what happened in 1959 - tragic accident or murder - not Zolotarev should be exhumed. But we could find the "hole" in the civil law in his case only. We hoped to find anything (the best option could be absence the body in the grave or not his body) for transferring this case under the criminal law regulation and reopen the old case.
But...
any way, looking forward )
I don't think the grave was reopened. I don't see the reasons for reopening. Everything was done in 1959.
Hi! First of all, thank you so much for all of your work so far on the case, it's amazing to finally get another more modern opinion on the case!
I know you mentioned that his grave seems to be in order, and that it's not likely that the case will be reopened, but do you think that if the experts deduce any sort of new evidence pointing to foul play that the Russian government may reopen it? Or do you think that this is simply unlikely due to the advance stage of decay in the body?
I know you mentioned that his grave seems to be in order, and that it's not likely that the case will be reopened, but do you think that if the experts deduce any sort of new evidence pointing to foul play that the Russian government may reopen it? Or do you think that this is simply unlikely due to the advance stage of decay in the body?
I dont see any more)))
Special for your forum from Natalya.
Of course - no. Even no body at all in the grave, or 3 bodies.
Galya, what Armide means is that if there is a suspicion of Zolotaryov being murdered (two blows, not one) wouldn't the government consider reopening the case?
What do u know about Okishev?
do u know about Shkrybich?
do u know about Shkrybich?
I don't know who he is.
and read about Shkrybach's conclusion https://m.kp.ru/daily/26637/3656345/ (https://m.kp.ru/daily/26637/3656345/)
This all started the conditioning for exhumation. This is a very long history of the modern attempt to make a documentary about this case.
and read about Shkrybach's conclusion https://m.kp.ru/daily/26637/3656345/ (https://m.kp.ru/daily/26637/3656345/)
This all started the conditioning for exhumation. This is a very long history of the modern attempt to make a documentary about this case.
Shkrybach's conclusion is what can be expected, given the conclusions that were drawn in 1959. He strongly insists that it is not necessary to re-open the case, and he seems to be of the opinion that every answer has been found. Being a high-ranking state official, he is more or less bound to stick to the official version which was evidently desired. We do not need to assume that he is dishonest. It is fully possible that this is his sincere opinion, and we do not know how much he actually knows apart from what he says. The question of whether or not he tells us everything he knows is not the most important. Whether or not he tells what he sees as the truth, and he may well do, the point is that we do not have to agree with his conclusions, because there are a lot of reasons to doubt the official versions of what happened.
His statements and the grounds he gives for them fail to back up his conclusion, and there are many details which simply do not fit in. Also, there are many pieces of evidence that he does not mention.
1. The fact that the official papers state that the first steps of the investigation were taken on February 6 is worth noting. If this date is not mistaken, it means that the authorities were aware of what had happened and prepared for an investigation long before anyone else knew that the nine students were missing. But, even if we must note this detail, it is not conclusive because it is possible that the date was written by a mistake. It may not have been a mistake, but it cannot be excluded either.
2. Shkrybach and the official version insists that the nine students fled their tent voluntarily and without pressure from any attackers. It means that nine young and bright persons fled out in the winter and moved up to a mile away from the tent without proper clothing and with no gloves. That is the official version. We might recall that the official version also states that the nine cut their way out from the tent. One additional point here, is that it is not documented who made the cuts. The knives belonging to the nine students were found in the tent - and these knives were all in their sheaths. This is one of many details that cast serious doubt on the official version - there is no evidence at all that the students cut through the tent and also no evidence that the students left the tent through the cuts. In spite of this, it has been stated as if it was a fact. An analytic read of the material available from the first investigation combined with modern material gives a strong impression that from the start, it seems to have been important for someone in high positions to make the final conclusion that the deaths of the nine was the result of a series of accidents and not murder.
3. It wouid seem that the best approach to try to find out whether the tragedy was an accident or a planned, intelligent murder committed by humans who knew how to arrange an "accident" is to take a close and unprejudiced look at the information we have. The examination and analysis of the evidence should be done without interpreting the available evidence from the premise that the Dyatlov pass tragedy was an accident. First and foremost, there are the bodies and their injuries. That is why the exhumation of Zolotarev is so valuable if it can give us new information that we did not have before.
I'm sorry for the late response.
Is possible that Zolotaryov's injuries could have resulted from 2 almost simultaneous impacts of natural origin? For example, if Zolotaryov and the others were standing on the rocky bottom of a ravine, and the side of the ravine had tall/deep pack snow that collapsed...... Is it possible that impact #1 happened while standing when the 'wall' of ice hit him, and impact #2 resulted from his body being thrown against the rocks caused by impact #1.
Im trying to simplify my text due to language difficultly, please let me know if I need to clarify further, and thank you again!
If we are talking about "impact of natural origin" we mean 1) avalanche 2) fall of large masses of snow down а) accomulated on the tent b) in the ravine.
Look at the injuries:
(https://preview.ibb.co/fiLDgJ/1.jpg) (https://ibb.co/noiATy)
factores responsible of this injuries are
- force
- area over wich it acts
- time taken over with the energy is transferred
1) FORCE
In our case it was chest trauma caused by blunt object.
Can we characterize snow as a blunt object? No ice there.
2) AREA
We have localized injury with a point of force application "right side of the sternum, distance between 2nd and 5-6th ribs". Additional signs of localizes area are not injured collarbone, sternum, protruding parts of the scapula.
(https://d.radikal.ru/d23/1805/2a/642801f7e426.jpg)
Can snow cause the local damage?
3) TIME
Forensic medical characterictic of a blow - <0,1 sec, compression >0,1 sec
Can snow dissapier immideatly (<0,1 sec) from the body? If can not...
The total impact energy = energy of primery blow (depends of mass, height in case of snowfall or speed of object in case of avalanche) + weight gravitational force wich depends of mass.
4 bodies were fully covered by old havy 2,5m plast of snow for months, but it not enough to cause even dislocation of broken ribs or secondary fractures. Lung is not damaged (no pneumothorax).
What was the mass of the snow, from what height did it fall or what speed did it move for causing this local traum?
I'm sorry for the late response.
Is possible that Zolotaryov's injuries could have resulted from 2 almost simultaneous impacts of natural origin? For example, if Zolotaryov and the others were standing on the rocky bottom of a ravine, and the side of the ravine had tall/deep pack snow that collapsed...... Is it possible that impact #1 happened while standing when the 'wall' of ice hit him, and impact #2 resulted from his body being thrown against the rocks caused by impact #1.
Im trying to simplify my text due to language difficultly, please let me know if I need to clarify further, and thank you again!
If we are talking about "impact of natural origin" we mean 1) avalanche 2) fall of large masses of snow down а) accomulated on the tent b) in the ravine.
Look at the injuries:
(https://preview.ibb.co/fiLDgJ/1.jpg) (https://ibb.co/noiATy)
factores responsible of this injuries are
- force
- area over wich it acts
- time taken over with the energy is transferred
1) FORCE
In our case it was chest trauma caused by blunt object.
Can we characterize snow as a blunt object? No ice there.
2) AREA
We have localized injury with a point of force application "right side of the sternum, distance between 2nd and 5-6th ribs". Additional signs of localizes area are not injured collarbone, sternum, protruding parts of the scapula.
(https://d.radikal.ru/d23/1805/2a/642801f7e426.jpg)
Can snow cause the local damage?
3) TIME
Forensic medical characterictic of a blow - <0,1 sec, compression >0,1 sec
Can snow dissapier immideatly (<0,1 sec) from the body? If can not...
The total impact energy = energy of primery blow (depends of mass, height in case of snowfall or speed of object in case of avalanche) + weight gravitational force wich depends of mass.
4 bodies were fully covered by old havy 2,5m plast of snow for months, but it not enough to cause even dislocation of broken ribs or secondary fractures. Lung is not damaged (no pneumothorax).
What was the mass of the snow, from what height did it fall or what speed did it move for causing this local traum?
.do you have any proof or evidence regarding the scapula "fractures", or do we simply trust you?Not me. U should trust (or not) KP. Also u have to remember about copiraites (I don't publish even schemes of scapula until now). KP is a one of the biggest federal mass media with their own interest (publcations, tv programmers, movie and etc).
Quote.do you have any proof or evidence regarding the scapula "fractures", or do we simply trust you?Not me. U should trust (or not) KP. Also u have to remember about copiraites (I don't publish even schemes of scapula until now). KP is a one of the biggest federal mass media with their own interest (publcations, tv programmers, movie and etc).
Fractures of scapula are not the secret, but not published yet.
Thank you for understanding.
About the scapula
2nd opinion of Eduard Tumanov https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Eduard_Tumanov - 2 blows by blunt object with a LIMITED surface (surface of object < than saurface of scapula). Eduard Tumanov is a head of
KP is going to get the 3d opinion. Pictures and schemes will be published after that.
DNA test result has been done by TV, not by KP. This test is not official for many reasons. KP is going to do official test in the Federal Center of Forensic Medical Expertise at the Ministry of Health. Pavel Ivanov agree to do it. https://www.icmp.int/press-releases/russian-forensic-scientists-visit-icmp/
Let see.
-
So sorry, I don't understand your English very well. I hope, I don't understant english, not you.
You asked for a second opinion from OUTSIDE of the propaganda machine, and I have it. You did not like the opinion a TOP independent US forensic pathologists gave, so now I'm expected to keep my mouth shut so you can shop it around looking for a publicity whore to agree with your "findings".
Why on earth would anyone trust KP or anyone involved with an analysis done for KP?
If your image of a scapula with lines depicting where these hairline cracks are located is copywrite of KP, then this means you sold them the rights to use it. It also means you are profiting off of the victims.
What I see is an attempt to silence the second opinions in which you do not favor, while its shopped around to find ones that do.
I asked about Possibility to get the second opinion abroad
Sergey Nikitin's conclusion is "it was one single impact, Zolotarev was laying on the back at that moment (scapula fractures)"
I don't agree))) I suppose its could be two successive blows. But I'm not expert)
Chest injury is a injury of construction, we a looking for a forensic expert specialized in this type of trauma assesment for second opinion.
We hoped to find anything (the best option could be absence the body in the grave or not his body) for transferring this case under the criminal law regulation and reopen the old case.
But...
About the scapula
2nd opinion of Eduard Tumanov https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Eduard_Tumanov - 2 blows by blunt object with a LIMITED surface (surface of object < than saurface of scapula). Eduard Tumanov is a head of
KP is going to get the 3d opinion. Pictures and schemes will be published after that.
DNA test result has been done by TV, not by KP. This test is not official for many reasons. KP is going to do official test in the Federal Center of Forensic Medical Expertise at the Ministry of Health. Pavel Ivanov agree to do it. https://www.icmp.int/press-releases/russian-forensic-scientists-visit-icmp/
Let see.
-
Meh.... thanks, but its my moral duty!
Calzaghe is absolutely dead on here.... Sergey Nikitin was the ONLY forensic pathologist present at the exumation, but yet what he says is being questioned by propaganda tools looking for click-bait or otherwise people believing assertions made by non forensic experts on the basis of 'it fits my agenda'.
WAKE UP!
I agree with much of what you say.
However, the same scandalous behavior of 1959 is alive and well today. I am afraid you may have already drank the Koolaid though. excuseme
"broken" scapula...... We are talking about three tiny hairline cracks at locations in which are paper thin and extremely fragile. The Humerus bone of the arm literally pivots within the socket of the scapula. Any and all force applied to the shoulder/chest region will be transferred into the scapula. This isn't rocket science. If you jump out of a truck and mess up your knee or hip, you wouldn't declare a conspiracy or foul play because your foot is ok..... would you?