The tent was cut from inside?

[gunmat]

The tent was submitted for forensic examination 35 days after it was found. In the meantime, it had been packed and unpacked countless times. Dr. Churkina states in her report that she received the tent in a rolled-up and crumpled condition. In her conclusion, she writes that the cuts were made from the inside of the canvas. She does not suggest that anyone inside the tent cut holes in the canvas to escape. It's as if she's washing her hands, like Pilatus, before passing judgment. Note that the report begins by making Churkina aware that she is criminally liable if she does not tell the "truth". This says something about the atmosphere prevailing in the Soviet Union in 1959.
--
The conclusion is based on the fact that tears on the inside of the canvas were in line with the cuts. This indicates that the cuts were inflicted from the inside. It means that the knife was inside the canvas in several places when the cuts were made. It is the prosecution in Sverdlovsk that concludes that the Dyatlov group cut themselves out of the tent, not the forensic expert.

The examination is not valid evidence in the case because the "chain of custody" was broken numerous times before the tent was submitted for examination. The scratches described could have been inflicted by people outside the tent with equal probability, who drove the knife through the canvas and fiddled around with the knife inside the canvas, tearing open the cuts.
--
The narrative that the Dyatlov group cut themselves out of the tent in panic and fled downhill has no place in a serious investigation of what really happened in February 1959. The mystery around the tent is in itself not solved.

https://dyatlovpass.com/case-files-303-304

[Ziljoe]

Dr Churkina wouldn't be able to suggest that people cut holes to escape. Her job was to investigate the tent and give a report. She says that there are knife marks on cuts 1,2 and 3 from the inside, she states this with confidence.

Damage # 2 and 3 have a non-uniform arcuate shape. The approximate length of these lesions is 89 cm and 42 cm. from the right edge of damage # 2 and from both edges of damage # 3 there are no cloth flaps and it is possible that they had their continuation further.

I believe she is saying cuts #2 and #3 might be longer but there are missing flaps.

CONCLUSION

In the camping tent of Dyatlov group on the right slant of the canopy forming the roof, three damages of approximately 32, 89, and 42 cm in length /conditionally numbered 1, 2, 3 / are made with some sharp weapon /knife/ i.e. are cuts.

All these cuts are done on the inside of the tent

Dr Churkina, notes the other holes are rips or tears but cuts 1, 2 and 3 are not tears . I think this is the difference anyway and why it's important. The forensic expert is not there to close the case, they are there to give findings and conclude these findings.

I would say that the narrative of the Dyatlovs cutting their way out of the tent strongly exists. We have got to read the statements as factualy as we can , we must believe the initial "investigation" in 1959 first and see how things add up.  . The examination of the tent  is valid,it is quite specific and may take reading several times. In isolation it maybe doesn't mean much by its self but it gives a narrative to the tent being intentionally cut, by outsiders , by the Dyatlovs to get out from under a tree or escape an avalanche, beast or poisonous gas.








 

. Note that the report begins by making Churkina aware that she is criminally liable if she does not tell the "truth". This says something about the atmosphere prevailing in the Soviet Union in 1959.
--

This doesn't say anything about the atmosphere prevailing in  the Soviet Union in 1959. It is the nature of investigations and to lie in an investigation is a serious matter, it's the same the world over , even Human resources  warn staff of lying in workplace investigations or any witness statements to any matter.

[gunmat]

A witness/expert witness takes an oath where they promise to tell the truth. An expert witness is already pre-cleared for the task. They are beyond suspicion and are not threatened with punishment if they do not tell the truth. I see what you're writing. I believe we'll let it hang there, for others to read.

[Partorg]

Experts have always been warned about liability and are now warned without fail and in accordance with the requirements of both the criminal and civil procedural codes.

The expert’s powers are limited to determining the mechanism of formation of a particular trace, and in some special cases, also the tool (instrument) that was used.
The   c i r c u m s t a n c e s   surrounding the occurrence of the trace are beyond the expert's competence. This is the prerogative of the investigator.
Those expert could have said which knife (out of those presented to him) was used to make the cut (if such a task had been assigned to him by the investigator) But how could he establish that the cut was made by the Dyatlovites, and not by someone else who used dyatlov's knife?!

Scratches on the tarpaulin, which are a continuation of the cuts, clearly indicate that the cuts were made from the inside.

[GlennM]

What is not mentioned is the presence of tree sap, pine needle or tree bark on the exterior nor interior of the tent suggestive of a tree fall. There is no mention of blood on the interior canvas indicative of blunt force trauma or crushing. When the rescuers found the tent they did not take advantage of the existing cuts to look inside of the tent.They made their own. The tent was not filled with snow. The tent was dragged on the ground to the helicopter landing, reportedly over 1600 yards, or a half mile distant. The tent was kept in "dead" storage until it was finally discarded. This, I presume was a good faith effort to preserve evidence rather than to hide it.