Victims and Case Files > Aleksander Kolevatov
On A. Kolevatov's Death
Per Inge Oestmoen:
--- Quote from: Armide on May 13, 2018, 05:46:18 AM ---
Per, I personally really enjoy reading your posts because you clearly argument your case really well, but there are a few inconsistencies I have noted.
Firstly, I believe the knee injury was sustained before the night of the accident. If I'm not mistaken "diffuse bleeding under the tissue" simply means a bruise. It's a part of the body that's very easy to bruise even from a normal hike or even perhaps, let's say, an unfortunate encounter with the stairs of the UPI. grin1 I think it also mentions that there may have been apiece of gauze around it that might've slipped at some point. I just don't think this injury in particular would have killed Kolevatov.
As for the deformed neck, I originally believed that an attacker had actually manually snapped his neck in order to "kill off" the Ravine 4 like you mentioned, but the more I read about this sort of injury, the more I have reason to believe that this is not the case. If Kolevatov's neck injury had been enough to kill him, Vozrozhdenny would have mentioned it without fail. He may be an unreliable source, but I don't think he couldn't neglected something like that. I obviously don't know much about medicine and I'll continue to mention that till the day I die, but logically I don't think he had a severe neck injury or else we would have known about it.
For all we know, a "deformed neck" could have been caused by a simple wry neck he might have sustained even before the trek. After doing a bit of Googling a "deformed neck" doesn't necessarily sound like a fatal injury in any way. Don't get me wrong, it can be, but in this case it's very possible that it would have been a non-fatal injury.
I'm not completely against all of your points though, I do agree that Thibeaux-Brignolles or Kolevatov would, or rather should, have logically taken clothes off of each other's corpses had they died at different times. I also do agree that there might have been some external factors that prevented them from doing so. I'm not particularly fond of just one theory in particular, so I try to stay as vague as possible.
--- End quote ---
1. I agree completely with the assessment of the bruise on Kolevatov's knee. I included it because it was on the list of his injuries, but it is neither conclusive of anything nor at all serious in any way. It could hardly even cause any inconveniences when moving about, it was a trifling bruise and nothing more than that.
2. Kolevatov could not possibly have gone with this group if he had had this damage before the trip. A deformed neck is a very serious condition when cartilage in the larynx and thyroid gland area is damaged. The cartilage of these structures are prone to damage if a victim of an attack receives a hard blow to the throat area. We know that there was such a damage. Although there is no way to prove the exact details of how dis injury was made, it is very unlikely that such a localized injury was caused by decomposition and lying in snow and water. The injury definitely does not look like something that Kolevatov had before the the trek - broken cartilage in the throat area is not a trifling injury. Laryngeal traumas are potentially lethal, and a blow to these sensitive areas will paralyze the victim.
I see the need to point out that Kolevatov's deformation of the thyroid area was truly serious:
"Laryngeal injuries secondary to manual strangulation are seen more often by the forensic pathologist than by the otolaryngologist. Forces sufficient to cause thyroid and cricoid cartilage fractures are usually sufficient to cause acute asphyxia and death. However, due to the static nature of the compressive forces applied in strangulation, fractures of the cartilaginous framework may occur without obvious mucosal disruption or submucosal hematoma formation. If the victim survives the initial assault and the injuries go unrecognized and untreated, delayed life-threatening airway obstruction of long-term vocal dysfunction may result. Computed tomography seems to be an excellent noninvasive technique to evaluate and verify cartilaginous laryngeal fractures and soft-tissue injury. Recognition of the potential for such injuries is the key to management and treatment."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6847488
And it was this kind of injury Kolevatov had!
3. it is a fact that the leaders of the investigation were instructed to close the case with the conclusion that it was all a result of an accident, and for that reason there was never a proper analysis of all the forensic evidence. Vozrozhdenny and the others were under heavy pressure - the authorities wanted the conclusion that the Dyatlov pass incident was an unfortunate accident. Vozrozhdenny registered the injury, but failed to elaborate on how serious it was.
Armide:
Hmm, that's quite interesting. I must agree with you that if he had injured his throat cartilage that the injury must have been fatal. I know I am playing devil's advocate whilst saying this, but after all this is what keeps the conversation going.
Would Vozrozhdenny not have noticed any bruises if Kolevatov would have been strangled? Even if something had been pushed down onto his throat, for example a baton, should we not be seeing any bruises?
On top of that, to quote the exact report "The neck is long and thin, and deformed in the area of the thyroid cartilage. The thorax is rectangular in shape." Vozrozhdenny clearly says that the neck is deformed in the area of the thyroid cartilage, but does not mention any damage to the thyroid cartilage. A 'deformation' at the area of the thyroid does not necessarily equate to damage to the underlying cartilage. Obviously Vozrozhdenny was very vague with his wording, but it's possible that he may have just meant that the neck is bent just under the jawline.
I'll admit that I do think that his neck injury may have been caused by some type of trauma that would have happened on that fateful night, but I do have reason to believe that this would not have killed him. If we look at the position in which he died, he had one arm wrapped around Zolotaryov and was pressed against his back. I think that he would have done this to keep Zolotaryov warm, it's textbook behaviour when trying to keep someone warm. Maybe this wasn't the case and the two men were embracing for whatever other reason, perhaps seeking solace in each other in their final moments, but still, the position suggests a conscious decision in my opinion.
If Kolevatov was killed by his injuries as you said, then I imagine you also believe that Zolotaryov was killed by attackers. So, let's imagine the two possible scenarios:
1. Kolevatov dies first of his injuries (by strangulation or otherwise) inflicted by his attackers and collapses to the ground dead. Zolotaryov is still alive. Why would Zolotaryov's reaction be to little-spoon press his back against a dead man's body and fling his arm over himself? It doesn't really add up.
2. Zolotaryov dies first of his chest injuries, again collapsing to the ground. Maybe Kolevatov cuddles up to him to keep him warm of whatever. Has he already sustained his neck injury? Has he just been strangled but then decides to stay close to Zolotaryov? Or is he strangled whilst in this position?
Let's admit that Kolevatov was strangled and/or overpowered. He gets away from his attackers. Why would they not finish the job? Why would they half-strangle him and then decide to just leave him there if they were able to overpower him the first time? I guess it depends on how long he would have survived if such an injury truly was fatal, but unfortunately I'm afraid that that's beyond my area of expertise.
As for Vozrozhdenny, I doubt that we'll ever know what fuelled him to be so imprecise. Let's just not forget that at the time surgeons received better pay for conducting autopsies than they did performing surgeries on the living. It may have been politically motivated or been the effect of a long week or too small of a pay check. Also, none of us really know what autopsy reports looked like in 1950's RSFSR, for all we know he may have done the bare minimum of what was required at the time, satisfying the investigators.
Loose}{Cannon:
dunno1
Per Inge Oestmoen:
--- Quote from: Armide on May 13, 2018, 07:52:30 AM ---Hmm, that's quite interesting. I must agree with you that if he had injured his throat cartilage that the injury must have been fatal. I know I am playing devil's advocate whilst saying this, but after all this is what keeps the conversation going.
Would Vozrozhdenny not have noticed any bruises if Kolevatov would have been strangled? Even if something had been pushed down onto his throat, for example a baton, should we not be seeing any bruises?
On top of that, to quote the exact report "The neck is long and thin, and deformed in the area of the thyroid cartilage. The thorax is rectangular in shape." Vozrozhdenny clearly says that the neck is deformed in the area of the thyroid cartilage, but does not mention any damage to the thyroid cartilage. A 'deformation' at the area of the thyroid does not necessarily equate to damage to the underlying cartilage. Obviously Vozrozhdenny was very vague with his wording, but it's possible that he may have just meant that the neck is bent just under the jawline.
I'll admit that I do think that his neck injury may have been caused by some type of trauma that would have happened on that fateful night, but I do have reason to believe that this would not have killed him. If we look at the position in which he died, he had one arm wrapped around Zolotaryov and was pressed against his back. I think that he would have done this to keep Zolotaryov warm, it's textbook behaviour when trying to keep someone warm. Maybe this wasn't the case and the two men were embracing for whatever other reason, perhaps seeking solace in each other in their final moments, but still, the position suggests a conscious decision in my opinion.
If Kolevatov was killed by his injuries as you said, then I imagine you also believe that Zolotaryov was killed by attackers. So, let's imagine the two possible scenarios:
1. Kolevatov dies first of his injuries (by strangulation or otherwise) inflicted by his attackers and collapses to the ground dead. Zolotaryov is still alive. Why would Zolotaryov's reaction be to little-spoon press his back against a dead man's body and fling his arm over himself? It doesn't really add up.
2. Zolotaryov dies first of his chest injuries, again collapsing to the ground. Maybe Kolevatov cuddles up to him to keep him warm of whatever. Has he already sustained his neck injury? Has he just been strangled but then decides to stay close to Zolotaryov? Or is he strangled whilst in this position?
Let's admit that Kolevatov was strangled and/or overpowered. He gets away from his attackers. Why would they not finish the job? Why would they half-strangle him and then decide to just leave him there if they were able to overpower him the first time? I guess it depends on how long he would have survived if such an injury truly was fatal, but unfortunately I'm afraid that that's beyond my area of expertise.
As for Vozrozhdenny, I doubt that we'll ever know what fuelled him to be so imprecise. Let's just not forget that at the time surgeons received better pay for conducting autopsies than they did performing surgeries on the living. It may have been politically motivated or been the effect of a long week or too small of a pay check. Also, none of us really know what autopsy reports looked like in 1950's RSFSR, for all we know he may have done the bare minimum of what was required at the time, satisfying the investigators.
--- End quote ---
1. An injury to the laryngeal structures like Kolevatov's is not necessarily fatal, but it can be. We cannot possibly know whether or not this particular injury killed him. it is a possibility, but we cannot know. The relevant tissue is long gone, and because of the incompleteness of the autopsy report there is no way to know whether this injury caused death.
2. There were many injuries to the victims that were consistent with a human attack, not only Kolevatov's. Remember, the investigators were instructed to state that the Dyatlov group died from hypothermia. This is evidently not the case, yet that was the conclusion when the case was closed. From these facts, I personally do not believe Vozrozhdenny could ever state it openly if he did find any clear signs of murder like marks that hinted at strangulation.
3. The autopsy report at least goes so far as to say "deformed in the area of the thyroid cartilage." I cannot see how there could be any kind of deformation, unless the cartilage was damaged. If the neck was just bent when Kolevatov was found, there would be no talk of deformation - which is something very different from a bend in the neck.
4. The two men were found lying as though they were embracing each other. The text reads: "The bodies of Kolevatov and Zolotaryov were embraced breast-to-back, as if Kolevatov was protecting or trying to warm up Zolotaryov." But was it really so?
Let us have a look at the picture:
https://dyatlovpass.com/resources/340/gallery/Kolevatov-Zolotoryov-Thibeaux-Brignolle.jpg
I can certainly see how the scene could be interpreted to show that Kolevatov tried to protect Zolotaryov. The question is whether that was what actually happened, or if the two men became physically entangled in an embrace when they died together. It is possible that after the four last victims were dead the killers threw the bodies into the ravine - and Kolevatov Zolotaryov became entangled in death. Lastly, it is also fully possible that Kolevatov did indeed embrace Zolotaryov in the last moment of their lives after both having been mortally wounded by the attackers - who might even have stood there and waited for them to perish. That situation could very likely have triggered an impulse to embrace your friend. It is known that in war scenarios where people are killed they often seek each other for comfort, even in their very last seconds. There is no way to know how it actually happened. I only point out that the embrace of Kolevatov and Zolotaryev does not tell us that they were alone and that there had been no attackers.
5. Armide wrote: "As for Vozrozhdenny, I doubt that we'll ever know what fuelled him to be so imprecise. Let's just not forget that at the time surgeons received better pay for conducting autopsies than they did performing surgeries on the living. It may have been politically motivated or been the effect of a long week or too small of a pay check. Also, none of us really know what autopsy reports looked like in 1950's RSFSR, for all we know he may have done the bare minimum of what was required at the time, satisfying the investigators."
Comment: I can only say that this is very true, and I agree without reservation. If is impossible to know with certainty what caused the various imprecise and/or misleading statements, omissions and glossing over of unmistakable signs of foul play.
Loose}{Cannon:
--- Quote ---deformed in the area of the thyroid cartilage."
--- End quote ---
This does not mean its an injury.
--- Quote ---We cannot possibly know whether or not this particular injury killed him.
--- End quote ---
But yet you insist that it is.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version