Victims and Case Files > Case Files
Inspection Of The Tent
cz:
Thank you very much for these information, WAB!
Looking at the tent photo from Ivdel, I realized that the lower
2/3 of the canvas, which initially covered the "right whole" (right side on the photo),
appear to be folded toward the right. Actually, the folded section of the canvas covers
some other damage on the photo. This is also consistent with the cuts
indicated by Alexey Rakitin. The case file drawing may be a little misleading here.
On the left, the situation is hard to assess on the photo.
I found it unusual that someone doing a real quick escape would bother
to cut all four sides of a whole. Once three cuts are made, the canvas hangs loosely, and it is
completely unnecessary to remove it; I guess it is not even easy because there is no tension.
Best
SteveCalley:
Yes. It looks like clawed by a hand rake.
cz:
In her report, Churkina explicitly writes that she studied all damages and only three could be attributed to cuts (p. 304 and following). These are those indicated by 1,2, and 3. The remaining damage is due to rupture (or post-incident damage as stated above). Honesty, I so far believed that Churkina somehow selected these cuts for some reason, but this is not what is written. According to the report, it is all cuts made from within. There is the ominous absence of p 303 in the report of course...
Unfortunately, only cut 1 is complete in the sense that all affected canvas was available. This one is too small for an escape. No. 2 appears awkwardly placed for escape because it is so high up. No. 3 on the contrary is pretty low (potentially once connected to no. 2). All of them are primarily in horizontal direction. I have not myself tried a tent escape but this pattern appears puzzling to me. For no. 1 in particular, I wonder what its actual (maybe initial) purpose was.
Per Inge Oestmoen:
--- Quote from: cz on May 24, 2018, 04:43:08 PM ---In her report, Churkina explicitly writes that she studied all damages and only three could be attributed to cuts (p. 304 and following). These are those indicated by 1,2, and 3. The remaining damage is due to rupture (or post-incident damage as stated above). Honesty, I so far believed that Churkina somehow selected these cuts for some reason, but this is not what is written. According to the report, it is all cuts made from within. There is the ominous absence of p 303 in the report of course...
Unfortunately, only cut 1 is complete in the sense that all affected canvas was available. This one is too small for an escape. No. 2 appears awkwardly placed for escape because it is so high up. No. 3 on the contrary is pretty low (potentially once connected to no. 2). All of them are primarily in horizontal direction. I have not myself tried a tent escape but this pattern appears puzzling to me. For no. 1 in particular, I wonder what its actual (maybe initial) purpose was.
--- End quote ---
Some questions have to be asked.
Question 1: How do we know who made the cuts in the tent? This question is relevant independent of whether the cuts were made from the inside or from the outside.
Question 2: Why was it assumed that the nine hikers left their tent through these cuts in the tent? Have any tracks or any indications been found that could support such an assumption? If not, what grounds do we have to take it for granted that these cuts were made in order to escape through them?
Question 3: If the cuts were made from the inside, how does this tell us anything about who made the cuts?
Question 4: Why must we assume that if the cuts were made from the inside, the Dyatlov group must have done it?
Question 5: Are there any grounds at all to believe that the Dyatlov group would even think of destroying their own tent?
As a matter of fact, there has never been found any evidence that the nine students did the cutting, there has never been found anything that could tell us that the students left the tent through the cuts, and there has never been demonstrated that the nine had any reason to perform such actions. Also, it is documented that the students had a happy time and did not have any trouble before disaster struck suddenly as a bolt from the blue: They made a humorous "newspaper" in the tent, which they called "The Otorten Evening News."
Vietnamka:
Let my tell u a funny story about this inspection kewl1
Of course this expertise looks strange. Why did Ivanov ask only 2 qustions
--- Quote --- Is Dyatlov group tent cut?
If yes, are the cuts made from inside or outside?
--- End quote ---
What about traces of blood, traces of explosive residue, fingerprints on the knife? Methods of research improved a lot for last 50 years. Could they proceed some tipes of expertise???
I started lookig for some information about capacity of criminal laboratories in 1959 in Sverdlovsk and found some article about the oldest expert in the Federal Center of Forensic Science in Yekaterinburg. I decided to ask him some quostions.
Can you imaging how shoked I was getting answer:
"Yes, I know this story. I was one of the experts who examined THIS tent in 1959 together with Churkina"
I transfered this information to Natalya and you can read his interviw here https://www.pskov.kp.ru/daily/26603.4/3618460/
Nothing new. But he explained situation about the forensic cenetrs in Yekaterinburg in 1959. I was surprised to know that it was 3 labs running by different Ministries
1) By Ministry of Internal Affairs. The oldest and very well equipped for forensic analysis during investigations
2) by Ministry of Justice. Established in 1951 for additional forensic expertise by court order.
3) military lab
Criminalistic expertise of the tent has been done in the Labratory of Forensic Science of the Ministry of Justice http://ural-sud-expert.ru/istoriya-uralskogo-rczse
Why? More suitable was the laboratory of Ministry of Internal Affairs.
Ok, let's step back a little bit.
26th of March the tent was found, 27 th - 4 bodies, criminal case on the death of tourists was opened. Determination the cause of death is the most important step, does not it? But the bodies were lying on the pass for 5 days (from 27th to 3d) without any examination.
The second very important qustion was " what happend? Why did they leave the tent and the tent is so badly damaged?"
Again, 27 th - tent found, 3d of March - delivered to Ivdel. Only 16 of March Ivanov odered the forensic examintaion of tent
--- Quote ---Act of Criminalistic expertise (tent)
Dyatlov Pass: Document in RussianRussian
Sheet 303
ACT № 199
forensic expertise
Written on April 16, 1959.
The case of the death of student tourists
from Dyatlov group.
April 3, 1959 from the Prosecutor's Office of Sverdlovsk region under the order of 16 / III-59. criminal prosecutor Jr. Justice Adviser Ivanova L.N. for the production of forensic examination entered the tourist tent of the Dyatlov group, found at the scene.
--- End quote ---
But the tent was delivered to Lab on April 3d, expertise has been done on April, 16.
1,5 months passed from the tent was found to expertise. Not fast for criminal case controlled by Khrushchev
But its not end of the story.
You can read one document https://dyatlovpass.com/case-files-032-035?rbid=17743
It was created by 'MEMBERS route-QUALIFICATION COMMISSION VseSOYUZny SECTION OF TOURISM" K.BARDIN / /E.SHULESHKO /"
and contains information:
--- Quote --- "According to experts tent was ripped open from the inside with a knife a few strokes
--- End quote ---
But no date. KP found the second copy of this document which has been sent to the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union
Do you see the date ?
What 'According to experts' these people are talking about if the tent has not delivered to the lab yet?? shock1
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version