Theories Discussion > General Discussion

Nurse Solter...again

<< < (2/5) > >>

Axelrod:
I voiced my idea to you that the disinformation was coming not from the nurse, but from the newspaper correspondent.
The newspaper needed additional sensation. At that time, the story was less known.
In the criminal case on Sheet 201, the names Bienko and Vishnevsky are also indicated.
Yudin - 11 (gone away), Doroshenko - 12.
Perhaps Chernobrov received information about 11 participants from that place.

Arjan:
Witness reliability

In general witnesses have different points of view/interest and different cultural backgrounds.
As example: read the reports of the investigation of an elephant in the first pages of The Little Prince by Antoine De Saint Exupèry.
One expert looks at the tail, one at the belly, one at the legs, one at the ears, one at the mouth, one at the trunk, etc., and all have different statements.

Reliability of witnesses is enhanced by:
- interview immediately after the event
- questions without bias and authority
- no new imprinting by other events that have taken place later.

Witness testimonies made many years later, may show unavoidedly a considerable/huge bias.

Personal, I regard most witness testimonies made many years later as a potential illustration of what may/might have happened.

See as well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyewitness_testimony

 

GlennM:
Arjan, you point out how time and psychology affect recollections. I agree.
What concerns me is the ongoing updates of Dyatlovpass.com regarding the deceased hikers. We have reports of Nurse Solter's recollections as interpreted by her husband. Then again,,we have the whole business pf the written medical reports and how they lacked stamps and had unconventional verbiage.

I do not know ifnthe original, stamped medical records were archived separately and the case file records were a typewritten copy. It would seem so. The typist would be plowing down through a stack of original documents. Some deviation in the language may be inevetable, but the main body of the documents would reflect the source material.

That is my point? I think it would be easy for conspiracy advocates to claim there was a deliberate coverup of some nefarious activity on 1079. I don't think so. Why? Solter may not be reliable at all. Next, faking autopsy reports is pointless when you have the actual corpses available to verify the reports. Further, if the intent of modified reports was to deflect suspicion of foul play, then surely less would be written of the major trauma. We know from case files that the physical remains were studied and reported in detail.

At this point, I believe that the major bonecrushing damage described for the ravine 4 is owing to snow. I believe it feasable that this crushing could have very well resulted in dirty, muddy clothes, as Solter claimed.

SURI:
I think it's important to focus on the details. For example, the theory with a fallen tree on the tent also has some cracks, because Zolotaryov, with a camera in his right hand and a compass in his left, certainly did not go to sleep and was not in the tent at the time of the incident.

SURI:
Of course, this post points to a certain book full of conspiracies (tent in the forest, fallen tree on the tent). But Zolotaryov blocks this conspiracy.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page