The latest Government findings of the Dyatlov incident is basically the same old smoke & mirrors. Not a serious investigation in any way shape or form.
I have correct you in these comments.
1. These aren't government statements or even the official version of the prosecution.
2. Mr. Kuryakov spoke with his private opinion, initiated by journalists and nothing more. He can't give his opinion to the Prosecutor's Office, because he hasn't worked there for more than six months.
3. This opinion has nothing to do with the real state of affairs and I know it very well, because week before, my friend and I had conducted all the experiments announced by the Prosecutor's Office, and their expedition on the spot could not conduct even half of these applications. What they were doing elsewhere, they could do anywhere (even in Africa), but it does not give the right results and cannot be the basis for the right conclusions.
4. If you paid attention to what the specialists involved said in the conclusion of this conference, you must understand that doctor Tumanov did not agree with the interpretation of trauma, and glaciologist Popovnin softly said that if the theory of avalanche can be considered (literally: "...has the right to exist...". (c) ), it means that he cannot guarantee that it was so.
5. Even what the prosecution team headed by Mr. Kuryakov was doing was not investigation, it was three-point test of the theory. The investigation and other official actions under Russian law in this case cannot be carried out for two reasons:
A) - there was court decision refusing to conduct the investigation in 2013 because one person submitted to the court illiterate and insignificant "quasi-evidence" of the wrong decision. All terms of appeal and cassation were missed long ago, so the court's decision cannot be reviewed.
B) - there are no new and essential facts and evidence in this case. If someone considers himself above the law and invents something unrealistic as these conditions, then this is the usual position of legally illiterate person.
Very disappointing indeed
I fully agree with you, but this only applies to the fact that such studies and the presentation of their results must be done very competently, qualitatively and responsibly.
I am only talking about the physical, logical and factual part of the research. Legal issues are separate line, but there are no prospects for that.
Let us distinguish between the desires of the public and the system of legal actions of the state.
Any scientific and factual investigation will be possible and useful for solving this case, but it should be done independently and very competently. In the other case, it would simply be imitation of that action, as the actions of the group led by Mr. Kuryakov have shown.