This murder scenario fits scene

[ElizabethHarris]

I'm obsessed with this case and came up with this scenario. The 9 were sleeping when one or more was awakened when hearing a commotion outside the tent. The unknown group could have been talking loudly or something like that but it was loud enough to alert at least one hiker who was alarmed because it was night and no one else was on that mountain except the 9 of them. This accounts for the small horizontal slits in the tent that were made with precision. They were used to look out of the tent to see who had suddenly appeared in their vicinity. Because the unknown group was there to cause grevious harm to the hikers, at some point they violently got the hikers out of the tent and forced them down the mountain, likely at gunpoint. This accounts for their being in underclothes and for why they ended up beneath the cedar tree. At this point, they were bound (ligature marks found at autopsy on 2 hikers) and forced to sit on the ground. One of the unknown group forced a hiker (I think it was Dyatlov) to climb the tree and start a fire. This accounts for the broken branches and clothes found in the tree. The unknown group was probably planning on toying with the hikers a while, causing small injuries to some, enjoying instilling unbearable fear in the hikers. When it became clear that they were in danger for their lives, at some point a fight broke out between several hikers and the unknowns. This accounts for the signs of physical fighting found on several hikers at autopsy. When that fight broke out, 2 of the hikers escaped and tried to get back to the tent but were quickly hunted down and killed. Dyatlov himself managed to get away and he followed the route Zina took up to the tent. He was especially protective of her and went to help her but he too was caught and murdered before he could get to her. All hell has broken loose and three of the hikers were tortured, murdered or grevously wounded at the scene and were left for dead or to freeze to death. The other 4 hikers were moved from the scene and brought to the second crime scene where they were abused over a longer period of time and slowly beaten and tortured over the span of several hours or more. This accounts for their injuries being so much more significant than the others. The unknown group took more time with them. The broken ribs, flailed chests, and Ludmilla's tongue was removed here. Eyes could also have been removed here as well but those could have been animal activity in the weeks after they died. The unknown group eventually left the 4, either already dead or dying and injured. Whoever survived the attacks, then froze to death and the unknown group disappeared into the night forever. What this theory misses is: how were chests caved in and crushed to the point that they were but it's possible some kind of unknown weaponry was used, possibly something not seen in traditional Soviet culture or they were stomped on violently and repeatedly. This theory also dismisses the camera's photos as coincidence. One other bit of evidence that will never make sense in any scenario is why one of the 4 who were found at the second crime scene had a pen and notebook on his person. Strange but we will never be able to pinpoint exactly what happened so it's not enough to debunk this theory. Another thought I had is that the strange person that was on the camera that some people think was a Yeti, could have been one of the unknowns seen earlier and photographed by a hiker. Perhaps they knew someone was lurking about that made them nervous and that's why they put their tent on a strange part of the mountain. Again, this might just be a coincidence and the figure was one of them. I would love to hear thoughts and critiques on this theory. After obsessively reading about this case, I cannot come up with another explanation that makes sense in the real world. Barring Yetis and aliens, I think this works. Thoughts?

[EBE]

I also think that the murder theory is by far the most plausible one.

But..

We should stick to the fact instead of theorizing about events that we will never be able to know if and how they happened (cutting the holes in the tent to see who is outside, missing eyes, tongue, pen and notebook etc..), although in general I think your assumptions are probably quite correct.

My opinion is that we should stick to the facts stated in the case files. Particularly with autopsy reports and morgue photos. There is enough evidence there, especially wounds to the sides of their heads, cutaneous wounds, multiple chest fracture lines, burns, symmetric ankle bruises etc.

Perhaps Krivonishenko's burned leg and trousers could provide a good start:).

[ElizabethHarris]

I agree with you completely, but we as humans who are natural storytellers need that "story" of what/how/who in an unsolved case. Exactly like you said, we will never know all those little details or how they exactly fit into the story but it's not necessary to understand them to get to the crux of the case, which in this case, is clearly sadistic, cold-blooded mass murder. To think otherwise, in my opinion of course, is ignoring the only things we know for sure which is crime scene photos and autopsy reports. The fact that this was officially ruled to be an avalanche scene in 2019 is a disgrace to the victims and their families. It proves that nobody really cares anymore and that's disgraceful.

Because of the shady business of the KGB in the 50s, it is hard to know what is true here or what information we can really rely on so you nailed it when you said, the crime scene photos and autopsies speak for themselves. They certainly are speaking. In fact, they are screaming first degree homicide. Avalanche, my butt.

[Manti]

How were those who got away and tried to return to the tent (Zina and Rustem), and then Igor who went after Zina, killed?

According to the autopsy these 3 had no life-threatening injuries and died of the cold. Rustem did have a fractured skull which is probably post-mortem, I think we shouldn't disregard that their frozen bodies were transported on the floor of a military helicopter from the pass to the morgue, this to me seems like the most likely cause for the skull fracture... there's testimony in the case files (I think... it's a while since I've read it) from someone saying the bodies "rang like glass"

[EBE]

How were those who got away and tried to return to the tent (Zina and Rustem), and then Igor who went after Zina, killed?

According to the autopsy these 3 had no life-threatening injuries and died of the cold. Rustem did have a fractured skull which is probably post-mortem, ..."

Zina had a head injury (except of other defensive and cutaneous wounds) that is described in the autopsy report and also in Maslennikov NB (scan 8): "The closest Kolmogorova 500 meters broken head". Even if this injury was not fatal, it could have made her unconscious and she froze to death.

As for Slobodin, how can anyone say that the skull fractures on both of his temples were post mortem? If there would be only one fracture (along the natural skull joint lines), I would say it is possible that it was caused by freezing brain tissues. Also, the pathologist Vozrozhdenny (who made the autopsies) suggested that Slobodin's skull fractures were probably caused by a blunt object.
If you suggest that some of the injuries were caused post-mortem by transportation, I need to say that you can excuse any of their injuries this way, maybe except of rib fractures. This will lead nowhere - if it would be few disputable injuries then fine, but so many? It is a common practice of some members of this forum to label any evidence that does not fit into their theory as being staged/caused by negligence etc.

Dyatlov - his body position in which he was found was not natural, but of course this fact alone cannot point to murder. Dyatlov is the only person who (according to the autopsy report, and if we omit Doroshenko's head burn) did not have a head injury. However, there is a wound in his hair visible on one of the morgue photos. Also, wounds on both ankles suggest that his leg were tied. Cutaneous wound on his palm was probably from a knife (he grabbed a knife blade in defense).

I would also like to point out that if these 3 people would just froze to death, they would have severely frostbitten feet (and possibly also hands), because natural freezing does not happen immediately, and feet/hands go first.. This was not described in the autopsy reports..

And one more thing. The autopsy report of Krivonishenko states that he froze to death, however, his left foot and leg was severely burned (bursting skin, flap skin from burning, charring). Freezing to death and 3rd degree burns somehow don't go together:)

[ElizabethHarris]

The fact that the autopsies found all of these defense wounds, evidence of a physical fight, and internal injuries that they admit were similar to injuries only seen in car wrecks, there is no other logical conclusion than violent death which equals homicide. There is a reason why their deaths were still ruled as the result of hypothermia despite the autopsies findings. The KGB was doing damage control. They didn't want too many questions asked just as in the Andrei Chikatilo case where the investigations were also so botched that he was allowed to go on murdering 56 women and children for years. I think it was Thibeau (?) who had the crushed skull when he was found at the scene. Coroner would be able to determine if the wound was postmortem or not and nothing suggests that it was. When you put all the physical evidence together I think it's logical to conclude that none of these injuries were accidental.

[Ziljoe]

This is interesting.



Zina had a head injury (except of other defensive and cutaneous wounds) that is described in the autopsy report and also in Maslennikov NB (scan 8): "The closest Kolmogorova 500 meters broken head".


I'm not aware of the autopsy mentioning anything relating to a broken head ? Some marks and abrasions/grazing?

I wonder if there has been some translation error when it says "broken head"?

[EBE]

The "broken head" comment is from a radio transcript in Maslennikov Notebook (scan 8 of the first part), from 27. February 1959 when they found Zina. The Russian original says разбита голова, so the English translation is correct, but it does not necessarily mean that her skull was broken, only that she had a noticeable head injury.

Autopsy report says:

1. dark red abrasion on the right frontal eminence
2. pale gray area 3x2 cm above the right eyebrow

If you look at her post-mortem photo, you would see that her face is covered with blood, especially the right part where she had the injuries described above.

[EBE]

The fact that the autopsies found all of these defense wounds, evidence of a physical fight, and internal injuries that they admit were similar to injuries only seen in car wrecks, there is no other logical conclusion than violent death which equals homicide.

Exactly. Based on autopsy reports and post mortem photos, homicide is by far the most plausible cause.

[Ziljoe]

Thank you EBE.

 variable translations seem to be , smashed, broken, broken down, defeated shattered, bashed.

Then, head, skull, mind etc

So its translatation could be "smashed  skull/head" ( I'm splitting hairs on this point ) however, it fits with Maslennikov radiogram and what he would have observed at the time of finding the body . Just enough to say the head looked damaged .

[ElizabethHarris]

In reading the summary of just Ludymila and Alexander, both found in the ravine, they both have the same neck injuries that, according to the autopsy, indicated strangulation, broken face bones, caved in cartilage of the noses, broken ribs etc.- very similar injuries which also possibly indicates one assailant inflicting said wounds. Thibeau had a massive head injury and skull fracture that was agreed to have been delivered with great strength. In addition to the blunt force trauma, sharp force trauma was also noted here indicating that a knife, ax or bayonet type instrument was used to cause said injuries. The hikers were beaten, tortured over a period of many hours, attacked with sharp and blunt instruments and then died from either strangulation, massive head injuries and/or froze to death. I think it's very important to read as much about the conditions of the bodies and each of their specific injuries to come to a similar conclusion that there can be no other logical and rational explanation other than premeditated homicide. Who/why will never be known and it is impossible to speculate without any real evidence as to their identification or motive. However, it should be recognized that the murders were indeed premeditated. While there are some strange circumstances here, I don't think this is as big a mystery as its been made out to be. Would there be any other conclusion had this event happened today?

http://russiantours.online/chapter14

[Manti]

It is a common practice of some members of this forum to label any evidence that does not fit into their theory as being staged/caused by negligence etc.

I don't have any theory, I haven't found one yet that sufficiently explained everything.
But regardless, I think it is true that a lot (maybe most) of the evidence in the Dyatlov Pass case is due to negligence.

Also I don't know where the info about skull fractures on both sides of Rustem's head comes from... He only had 1 long fracture, no?

I would also like to point out that if these 3 people would just froze to death, they would have severely frostbitten feet (and possibly also hands), because natural freezing does not happen immediately, and feet/hands go first.. This was not described in the autopsy reports..

And one more thing. The autopsy report of Krivonishenko states that he froze to death, however, his left foot and leg was severely burned (bursting skin, flap skin from burning, charring). Freezing to death and 3rd degree burns somehow don't go together:)

Frostbite develops once the frozen area defrosts (and the sufferer is still alive).

And yes burns and hypothermia can be compatible. It's a good time of the year for such experiments, try to light a bonfire on a windy night, and sit next to it in a T-shirt. You will still be cold. Or alternatively downwind from the fire it might burn your hair off (don't sit there!).
And when they couldn't put on more (dry) clothes etc and hypothermia advanced further, there is a stage with violent shaking and loss of coordination, it's plausible that they might end up with their legs over the fire.

So while I don't think the injuries of Krivo are that suspicious, the fact that no remains of a fire were photographed next to them is quite strange to me...

[Manti]

http://russiantours.online/chapter14

Regarding this essay.. I have read it, chapter 1 to 16 (16 is linked from chapter15, but titled "KGB").At the end of chapter 16/"KGB", there is no link to the next chapter and there is no chapter17 when I try that URL manually... but there is a sentence about further upcoming discussion about theories etc. Do you know where can I find the rest of the essay?

[ElizabethHarris]

Manti, no I don't know where the rest of the chapters in that essay are but I will look. If I find, I'll tell you how to get there.

[RMK]

I think this might be the URL y'all really want?: http://russiantours.online/posts/3164179

[ElizabethHarris]

Yes, that's it. Thank you!!

[ElizabethHarris]

The article in question has a criminal section that discusses the different theories regarding intentional homicide. It talks about a possible attack from gold miners and escaped criminals-absurd! Everyone loves a good conspiracy theory but this is over the top IMO. To me, these look like rage killings. Whoever killed them was pissed, beyond furious about something and tortured and killed them in the most brutal way possible.  A military attack wouldn't be this enthusiastic. Wouldn't they be quick assassinations? Why the egregious punishment? Doesn't jive for me.

[EBE]

Also I don't know where the info about skull fractures on both sides of Rustem's head comes from... He only had 1 long fracture, no?

Yes you are right, my bad, I was confused with the graphics on Dyatlovpass website. Even better: one fracture, two hemorrhages on both temples (do you think they were post mortem? ), hemorrhages on the right eye, wounds and abrasions on both cheeks, blood from his nose, swollen lips, bruised knuckles, defensive bruises on his left palm and arm.. this really looks like post mortem injuries or injuries from agony .

And yes burns and hypothermia can be compatible. It's a good time of the year for such experiments, try to light a bonfire on a windy night, and sit next to it in a T-shirt. You will still be cold. Or alternatively downwind from the fire it might burn your hair off (don't sit there!).
And when they couldn't put on more (dry) clothes etc and hypothermia advanced further, there is a stage with violent shaking and loss of coordination, it's plausible that they might end up with their legs over the fire.

So while I don't think the injuries of Krivo are that suspicious, the fact that no remains of a fire were photographed next to them is quite strange to me...

If you think that Krivo's burns were obtained this way..you can think whatever you want. My opinion is quite different. How about other injuries he had (especially head wounds on both temples and also his forehead)? Also caused by hypothermia?:)

[ElizabethHarris]

EBE, don't you know that skull fractures, defense wounds, loose teeth, broken ribs, bruises, petechia and the swallowing of one's own blood all equal....you guessed it!  HYPOTHERMIA!! 

Seriously I appreciate everyone's different opinions and all aspects of how to analyze this mystery but I am surprised to see just how many people have concluded that avalanche and hypothermia are the likely culprits here. But I am curious about one thing: seems that many posters who think this was not an accident blame some military involvement, conspiracy etc., I don't think the wounds fit the pattern of an execution-type killing. These hikers were punished beyond all definitions of the word. Why would the Russian military go to such lengths if they just wanted to shut them up for seeing something they shouldn't? Assassins take their targets out quick. If they all had gunshot wounds to the head or some such injury, a military involved murder would make much more sense. I believe that most forensic psychs and profilers would say this was personal. I'm curious about your ideas.

[sarapuk]

There is no evidence that other people were at the scene of the tragedy.

[ElizabethHarris]

There is also no hard evidence of an avalanche or a snow slab, or a wolverine or a UFO or military execution or infrasound reaction or any of the other theories, yes? That's the problem. Our attention should remain with the findings of the autopsies. 

[ElizabethHarris]

Upon further thought, while we don't know who/if anyone was present at the crime scene, we do know that there were other people on the same trail as the 9 in the days leading up to the deaths. Some have gone so far as to say that murder is impossible because there was no one else on that mountain and we know that is false, out of Dyatlov's own admission.

[sarapuk]

Upon further thought, while we don't know who/if anyone was present at the crime scene, we do know that there were other people on the same trail as the 9 in the days leading up to the deaths. Some have gone so far as to say that murder is impossible because there was no one else on that mountain and we know that is false, out of Dyatlov's own admission.

What admission was that ?

[GlennM]

Murder? Not likely. You could not stage such a theatrical display and not leave no clues behind. There would be prints, trails, fire pits and scat. The state of dress in the deceased would cause immediat immediate suspicion if nothing else. They were too underdressed.

[EBE]

Murder? Not likely. You could not stage such a theatrical display and not leave no clues behind. There would be prints, trails, fire pits and scat. The state of dress in the deceased would cause immediat immediate suspicion if nothing else. They were too underdressed.

They did not leave clues behind?  What about all those injuries, multiple head injuries, etc. Except of that, soldier puttees were found near the cedar and in the tent, these puttees did not belong to the group. There was a piece of broken ski found 20m from the tent (Maslennikov's notebook, scan 47).

Regarding the traces - there were multiple traces except of the famous barefoot footprints leading from the tent. This is clearly visible from early investigators photos. Famous photo with a heel is just one of them. You can check the materials and see for yourself. The problem is that the investigation of these prints was  insufficient, or rather there was no proper investigation.

Pls remember that the tent was not found by following the tracks of the Dyatlov group, because their tracks were already covered with snow. So if there were other people on the scene on skis, their tracks could have also been covered with snow. But anyway, in one of the early photos of Krivonishenko and Doroshenko, their bodies were covered with layer of snow, while there are relatively fresh footprints visible in the background - this was noticed by Russian journalist Natalya Versegova. This indicates that someone was near the bodies after their death and before official investigation.

And this leads to one of the most important facts - the case files were opened on 6. February. It is clear that the authorities knew about the incident long before the tent was "discovered" by the search party.

[ElizabethHarris]

The clues that this was murder are literally everywhere. Let's say that we knew absolutely nothing about the victims, their situation or the theories and we went by the autopsy reports alone, I doubt anyone would conclude it was avalanche, infrasound, snow slab or hypothermia. EBE's post says it all.

[sarapuk]

The clues that this was murder are literally everywhere. Let's say that we knew absolutely nothing about the victims, their situation or the theories and we went by the autopsy reports alone, I doubt anyone would conclude it was avalanche, infrasound, snow slab or hypothermia. EBE's post says it all.

Murder, implying that they were deliberately killed by another person or persons. Animals cant murder some one then and nor presumably can any non human  ! ?

[ElizabethHarris]

Yes, they were killed by other humans. Not a bear, Yeti or shark even. Those wounds would be easily and quickly interpreted by a coroner as animal attacks. There would be no debate.

[sarapuk]

Yes, they were killed by other humans. Not a bear, Yeti or shark even. Those wounds would be easily and quickly interpreted by a coroner as animal attacks. There would be no debate.

If the coroner could quickly interpret the wounds as not from an animal then they could equally interpret them quickly as being from a human. But they didnt. Because there is not enough evidence to show that the wounds were made by another human or humans.

[ElizabethHarris]

If there were bite marks on eyes, eyebrows, noses, lips and inside of the mouth, a coroner could absolutely know whether or not they came from animal/human. I don't believe there wasn't enough evidence at the time to determine where the wound came from (bitemark analysis) it was simply omitted. It's a pretty crappy autopsy report that mentions the missing lips, eyebrows, eyeballs and tongue and makes no attempt to explain the cause. If the wounds were postmortem, we would be able to see evidence or lack of it, of animal activity on the corpse. If cuts are made by straight edge sharp force traumas (to eyes, mouth, eyelids, tongue etc.) or not, it is the coroner's job to indicate that. Maybe they didn't have that capacity in '59. If so, its not the coroner's fault but leaves a big gaping hole as to what happened here which could have been filled with many more helpful details. Today, if a coroner simply wrote 'tongue is absent' on an autopsy without any further explanation, they'd be fired. Vozrozdhenny left many details that should have been in the reports out, as far as today's forensic pathology's standards go that is. And finally, I especially love one of the concluding remarks in Lyuda's autopsy where it says, "some internal organs taken." Taken? He doesn't say absent, or missing, as he did earlier in the report, but taken. We can play the semantics game all we want but that is one bizarre choice of words.