A Non-Random Conversation with Attorney Proshkin
An episode on the "Non-Random Conversation" channel for the 67th anniversary Dyatlov Pass: A Secret Criminal Case. The Whole Truth from the Investigator / Leonid [PROSHKIN] (February 19, 2026):
[–] Today is not a random conversation with Leonid Proshkin. He is a lawyer, an investigator for especially important cases at the Prosecutor General of the USSR, and later Deputy Head of the Investigative Department of the Prosecutor General's Office of Russia. I know you were reviewing the criminal case materials just recently.
Let's try to figure out what's wrong with this criminal case now. What blind spots did you see? What conclusions did you reach while reading and studying the criminal case materials? In 2018, you represented the interests of the relatives of the deceased tourists. Tell us, why did their relatives contact you?
► I learned about this criminal case and began working on it gradually back in 2011. Then in 2013. The Dyatlov Memorial Foundation approached me. And I worked on it quite seriously. Then I became its representative. Me and two other people.
[–] What did the foundation want? What did the relatives want?
► This criminal case—in essence, it's not a criminal case. It's a collection of documents that left something in human memory. At the time these tourists died, we were holding the 21st Congress of the CPSU, chaired by Nikita Sergeyevich Khrushchev.
He talked a lot about our achievements, about rockets, about how we would soon be sending cosmonauts into space. Basically, he talked a lot. This immediately made me understand why this case hadn't been investigated at all!
[–] Why?
► Because if it had been investigated, there would have been a lot of questions about what happened. It was obvious to me, and I later learned, that there was a second criminal case, investigated by a group from the USSR Prosecutor General's Office. A group that handles classified cases!
[–] Excuse me! So, the two cases were running in parallel?
► I can't say whether that second case was a proper one, because I didn't see that one. This case was about the deaths of nine people, and the other case was about some kind of man-made disaster and two people who were involved in that first case, the case of the deaths of nine people. They were asked to create materials for that secret case. What materials, how, and what they were turned into, I don't know. Those two people signed a non-disclosure agreement. They didn't tell me anything either, and they didn't tell anyone.
► So, do you know for certain that a secret second case regarding the tourists' deaths exists?
► Whether it exists now or not, I don't know. But there was such a case, and it was investigated, and two people investigated it who were involved in that case and had ties to that second case. I know this for certain.
Let's go back to 2018. What did they want from you, as a lawyer? You represented their interests, so that what could you do?
► I represented their interests so that not only the requirements of the criminal code were met, but also so that the rights of their relatives were respected.
[–] Explain!
► That case was initially opened due to the tourists' deaths, but it was dismissed due to the fault of officials. And there's nothing in that case regarding the deaths, or how they died. The rights of the victims and the relatives of the deceased in that case weren't respected. And the deaths of those tourists weren't fully investigated. The relatives wanted to know how their loved ones died.
[–] Is that the main reason?
► Naturally.
[–] That wasn't mentioned in order for them to be recognized as victims.
► No. They should have been recognized as victims from the very beginning… But the case was being investigated based on the deaths of their relatives. They should have recognized those relatives as victims right away. And then they would have had rights, quite a few.
[–] What rights?
► Well, the right to file petitions, view case materials, participate in investigative activities.
[–] Didn't they have that right?
► They weren't even allowed anywhere near the case!
[–] And how many living relatives were there in 2018? There were nine deceased tourists. Everyone had relatives.
► Most likely, everyone had relatives. But the foundation was closely involved with the relatives of two or three of the victims.
[–] You said they wanted to find out what actually killed their loved ones. As far as I remember, the relatives have their own theory about why the boys died.
► There were many theories. But this case ended with one theory: that these hikers died from climatic conditions, from natural conditions. They made some mistakes of their own—and as a result of those mistakes, they died.
[–] Leonid Georgievich! What confused you about this case? What blind spots did you see? What mistakes did the investigation make initially? You're an experienced investigator. What struck you as strange right away?
► I don't think mistakes were made! I think they were given some kind of order from above?
[–] An order to the investigators?
► Yes! Moreover, this case was investigated by subordinates, but the regional party committee and the military were quite seriously involved in it.
[–] You say they were given orders, which they carried out. However, what is missing in this case, in your opinion?
► Firstly, this case needed to be investigated, but no one properly investigated it. In my opinion, they simply created this case to write off the situation. Secondly, what happened to them, to the dead tourists, to the Dyatlov group? After all, they escaped from a tent that remained standing. They fled barefoot, almost naked. And then they were unable to return to the tent. Even though this tent was still standing, and there was clothing and shoes there, and food, and they even had alcohol there. In other words, they could have kept warm. All of this should have been taken into account. So, there should have been an investigation into what happened and how? And ultimately, what happened to them? It's impossible to say what exactly happened to any of the victims. Yes, they write that the man died of exposure. But why was he lying there freezing? Why didn't he return to the tent? The tent was hundreds of meters away. There was a stove there. They could have gotten dressed and put on shoes and done other things there.
[–] You told me you were shocked by how poorly the forensic expert described the bodies that were brought to him by helicopter.
► Well, the forensic pathologist performed the first five bodies in the presence of the Sverdlovsk regional prosecutor! That's the first time I've heard of a regional prosecutor being present in the morgue during autopsies…
[–] What does that mean?
► I'm also not quite sure why that prosecutor was there. There are 300-400 murders a year in the Sverdlovsk region. So, is the regional prosecutor present at every autopsy of real murders and brutal murders? Of course not!
[–] Why do you think he was there?
► It was because he was following the orders of the regional party committee. That's for sure!
[–] You told me earlier that you were surprised that they did it in a military helicopter. And in those days, the military didn't just give out helicopters!
► There was a curious situation there, how and who was looking for them, and what else they were looking for. There were military personnel, police, and correctional colony workers. There were a lot of different people there, but they were all sent there in a group!
[–] Why do you think there was such a delegation?
► The thing is, a relative of one of the victims was a fairly high-ranking military officer. And the case was also under the control of the CPSU Central Committee and Nikita Khrushchev. And it was impossible to even talk about such a thing happening.
[–] Let's get back to the forensic pathologist! They brought him five bodies. You told me the injury descriptions were poorly done, half-heartedly.
► Yes! Moreover, how and why they died was very poorly described in the forensic reports – it was impossible to understand!
[–] And was the forensic pathologist experienced?
► He was quite experienced. But then I and other lawyers brought in a very good forensic pathologist from Moscow. And he said a lot.
[–] For example?
► That doesn't match, that doesn't match either. Then other injuries were found there.
[–] Injuries on the body?
► Yes, there were injuries on the bodies too.
[–] Some bullets were also found at the site of the hikers' deaths.
► Cases were found there. There was something chemical.
[–] You said you were surprised that investigators checked the bodies for traces of radiation. What does that mean?
► Yes, radiation leaked out somewhere, and they started checking them. Some had it on their clothes…
[–] One of the members of the search party, 20 years after this whole story, once let slip in an interview that if the guys hadn't been phistechs, they would have survived. So, why do you think such a strange phrase was uttered?
► They probably could have stayed alive if things had been a little different. But there's no description of how it all happened in this criminal case. No!
[–] What's even in the criminal case? Are there any weather reports? Because everyone says, "They froze, there was a storm."
► There are no weather reports in the criminal case. They weren't requested. Moreover, there's a lot missing. But there are materials there about how they were allowed to go on the hike, what went wrong, how it wasn't properly organized.
[–] What else is missing in this case?
► There's no information about what was happening in the country at the time. Missiles were being tested, they were flying around. And there were missile crashes. By the way, someone found missile debris there.
[–] Was it in that particular area?
► Yes. Not far.
[–] Is there a theory about escaped prisoners in the case file?
► The local residents – no one did anything, no one came out… Moreover, the locals have always treated tourists very well. Maybe that's true. But there's no mention of escaped convicts.
[–] You've seen the crime scene photographs; they're included in the criminal case file. I've seen them too. Tell me, as an investigator, did anything bother you about the position of the bodies? The way they're lying…
► It didn't bother me. I worked in the Kemerovo region for quite a long time; I was a forensic prosecutor and went to many murders, and for a time, this region had the highest number of intentional murders in the country. The whole question is… It's not how they were laid out, but how they were examined. These examinations are very weak; they were poorly done because the forensic pathologist who autopsied them couldn't have done a better job. I think he did what the supervisor who was there told him to do.
[–] In 2019, you decided to exhume two bodies: Zolotaryov's and Dubinina's. What was the reason you decided to exhume them?
► Someone insisted, in the end. That second criminal case, the one about the man-made disaster, I can't say anything about it because it was top secret.
[–] Evgeny Okishev was the deputy head of the investigative department. And I remember, when he was already 98, you personally interviewed him in 2018.
► Yes, they then sent him to Moldova.
[–] And he actually told you that there was a second case. And he also signed a non-disclosure agreement.
► Yes, for 25 years. And Ivanov, who investigated the first case, was also sent somewhere quite far away (to Kazakhstan).
[–] Why? So they wouldn't blab?
► So they wouldn't be here!
[–] So they wouldn't show up?
► Of course!
[–] Why can't we reveal the facts now? We live in a different time, in a different country. About 70 years have passed since that terrible tragedy…
► In order to uncover the real cause of death, quite a lot needs to be done. A new investigation needs to be conducted and a whole host of other similar situations identified.
[–] You also said in an interview that you noticed that for some reason, a re-examination of the crime scene wasn't conducted. What is a re-examination?
► In incidents of this kind, when the area is large, re-examinations usually yield more results. When their tracks were examined, it was winter, freezing… And then the snow melted…
[–] Why wasn't there an inspection after the snow melted? What do you think?
► Well, there's no need to even think about it! The case was quickly closed in May. And it stated there that those from that institute who allowed them on the hike were to blame.
[–] And they were to blame?
► They were to blame for not creating the conditions for the hike.
[–] Tell me about the bodies that were taken away by military helicopter. Why do you consider this fact important?
► I know the military was ordered to help. It's possible that this was done so that other people would see it less. That foundation said they found quite a lot of missile debris there. Those areas were closed to visitors; the authorities didn't allow tourists there for a long time… Also, there's no conclusion in this case that any of them were killed.
[–] Hmm! Do you think they were killed?
► I still think they died in a man-made disaster.
[–] Was some rocket launch unsuccessful?
► They say that before Gagarin, some other cosmonaut died. And Gagarin flew two years later, in 1961. They were testing rockets. There were problems. And they could have launched the rocket not into space, but simply with someone who died…
[–] I know. There were several tragedies at Baikonur and Plesetsk. There were tragedies involving rocket explosions, where people died. Marshal Nedelin, among others, died in a failed launch of one of the rockets. Nevertheless, these cases have been declassified, the "secret" classification has already been removed.
► Yes, but this all happened after the 21st Party Congress, at which Khrukhov said: "Look how great we are! This is what we're doing and what we've already done."
[–] You're an investigator! You're probably well familiar with the specifics of such classified cases. What are the authorities trying to protect?
► You shouldn't ask me that question. I can't answer it. I don't know… That's my guess. If the rocket carrying our first cosmonaut before Gagarin, whom we launched for the 21st Congress, crashed there, he died there… Who's to say? Gagarin was the first cosmonaut!
[–] In 2019, the Prosecutor General's Office suddenly launched an investigation into the death of the Dyatlov group. They dug up the archives again and examined the case materials. They concluded that the guys died in an avalanche. Why do you think this investigation was conducted in 2019? Is this, well, sort of, the normal procedure?
► In order to investigate all of this, investigative actions need to be carried out. Only the Investigative Committee can do this.
[–] Is it even possible to further investigate a case now? Is it possible to create a precedent, write a petition, and have the case investigated? Is this even possible these days?
► Yes, it is.
[–] What is needed for this?
► The Investigative Committee or the Prosecutor General's Office needs to make a decision.
[–] Over the years, more than 70 theories have been put forward about what happened. Some theories were dismissed, as I understand it, as a result of the investigations conducted by investigators. Other theories, as I understand it, are still being considered and are still relevant.
► All of this can be done after permission and instructions to do so are received from the very top. And it will be done well.
[–] The exhumation of the bodies, which was conducted in 2018, also didn't reveal anything special. You examined Zolotaryov's skeleton there.
► Well, I understand that he was examined. And I understand that the others need to be examined too. There's a lot that can and should be done here.
[–] Let's hope that one day we'll finally find out what happened to Igor Dyatlov's group. I'm very grateful to you for coming to our interview. I wish you good health! We really hope that one day this mystery will also be solved!
We also really hope that the second case will finally surface and be declassified for journalists and the relatives of the victims. And we'll finally find out if there are any interesting details there. Subscribe to our channel! |
Topic: Lawyer Proshkin on the dead cosmonaut 02|02|59 (Read 230 times)