Please counter argue and find my errors in my poor medical understanding of the autopsy.
Frankly, I see no point in driving any significant conclusions from the autopsy reports that we can see in the case files.
Absolutely brilliant analysis. You hit the nail on the head. While everyone else is arguing about wind speeds and snow depths, they completely miss an obvious and massive fact that cannot be ignored – this unnumbered criminal case file itself is essentially a crime scene.
And these forensic reports are just the tip of the iceberg. Take, for example, the protocol of inspection of the scene where the bodies were found, the witnesses' names are written with gross errors and distortions. Furthermore, Vladimir Askinadzi himself later directly declared that he never signed anything.
https://dyatlovpass.com/case-files-341-343?rbid=17743
These legal anomalies and signs of document forgery serve as irrefutable proof of third-party intervention.
This isn't the point of my question unfortunately. If we are to review the case , we must approach it without bias. That's a difficult thing to do.
I think we’re using the word “analysis” differently. Senior’s post is an interpretation of the seal situation, but it isn’t analysis in the strict sense — it doesn’t break the documents down into their physical characteristics or consider alternative explanations.
That’s fine, everyone approaches the case differently, but I’m focusing on the physical evidence itself rather than the administrative anomalies.
The link you supply shows two versions. A typed version, probably for clarity for the case file and what looks like , field notes . We can see the folds in the hand written notes , a slight water mark that bleeds through the two pages and affects the ink. The page with the signature's looks to be the outside of the folding when stored as has the most weathering. This would suggest that the document has travelled and that is most likely from the location at the pass , to the final draft by Ivanov or whoever typed the typed copy. There's nothing exciting in the actual document that even contradicts any of the retelling of how the ravine 4 were found.
Regarding the case files, the seals, signatures, and formatting differences — my understanding is that the case file isn’t a single authored document. It’s an umbrella that contains material from multiple institutions, created at different times, under different circumstances, with different procedures.
Some documents are carbon copies without stamps. Some stamped originals stayed with the issuing institution. Some field notes were written outdoors and later copied. Some statements were taken in Ivdel, others in Sverdlovsk, each using their own boilerplate forms. Autopsies came from different medical facilities with different certification practices. Search protocols were handwritten in the field and later typed up for clarity.
The case file is simply a collection of all these documents — field notes, interviews, autopsies, protocols, memos — gathered from different places, different people, and different workflows. They weren’t produced under a unified “criminal case” mindset, because at the time nobody knew what had happened or whether a crime had even occurred.
So the variation we see isn’t evidence of forgery; it’s just the normal patchwork of a multi‑source Soviet case file.When you look at the case file as a multi‑source archive rather than a single authored document, most of the anomalies make sense without needing to assume anything unusual.
I think we can safely believe the autopsy reports.
So Suri , do you think a snow collapse at the ravine might have caused the injuries we see and are reported?
Recent Posts