Murder Indead

[sarapuk]

Loose Cannon, I still have doubts it was cut from the inside at all. I saw a demonstration once about the difference in cuts from a sharp object when cutting through canvas from both inside and out. There wasn't an obvious difference in places. Also, where were these knives they cut the tent with? It was clearly more than 1 that shredded the thing as it did, so where are they? The knives found in the tent were still in their cases and not found near the opening of the tent at all. Its a mystery.

I also have doubts about the tent being cut from the inside.

[Charles]

nothing here

[Per Inge Oestmoen]

Per Inge Oestmoen

no bullet wounds or knife cuts

To be honest, we have some evidence of knife cuts.
Autopsy report of Igor Dyatlov:
 In the area of the palm surface of the second and fifth fingers there is a skin wound of irregular linear shape with regular edges located transverse to the length of the fingers; the surface wounds are up to 0.1 (or 0.2 – note) cm deep.

But the main question of why the victims were not simply shot

the victims were  injured with one blow. Simply  and effectively.

But the main question of why the victims were not simply shot

the simplest answer is  - attacers didnt have weapons.
 Weapons were strictly prohibited in USSR except for hunting weapons. If it is correct assumption,  we can exclude some categories of people attacker did not belong
1) sololders (army, KGB)
2) hunters
3) organized criminal groups
 But the blows were very effective. This tells us that attackers were  very well trained to kill. Special Forces? Without weapons? 
What about the people who had have this training and took part in еspecial forces operations  during the WWII? They were 30+ in 1959.

 

If the victims had been shot, it would be impossible to make the murder look like an accident. It was very important to communicate to the public that this tragedy was an accident. The staunch insisting that an avalanche was responsible is testimony to the Soviet and later Russian governments' desire to conceal the truth. Now it has been scientifically and conclusively proven that there was no avalanche. Moreover, the injuries found on the bodies are inconsistent with what we observe after avalanches. Still, the authorities maintain that the tragedy was a natural accident.

The wound in the hand of Dyatlov is very likely from a bayonet. Dyatlov tried to fight, and tried to get hold on a rifle - and he was cut as the attacker probably withdrew the rifle in order to control Dyatlov in close combat.

Special forces - and the KGB were extremely well trained in close combat - know how to kill without firearms, and the orchestration and execution of "accidents," "natural deaths" and "suicides" is typical of killing by special forces, unless they want the public to know what happened.

To kill the nine students, who were loyal Soviet citizens and belonging to the privileged, with firearms would create protest and possibly political unrest. That would be a most irrational thing to do. The intelligent thing to do was what was done: To kill in such a was as to make it look like an accident. There was a sudden rise in temperature during the night between February 1 and February 2. That rise in temperature foiled the plot: The students did not freeze to death soon. Therefore, they had to be hunted down and dispatched. If there had been no rise in temperature, the nine would have died from freezing as intended - and very few would have understood that they had been murdered in cold blood.

[Ziljoe]

Who's thumb is that!?

All the deaths are consistent with exposure and hypothermia. The avalanche theory varies from snow slide to slip of a small amount of snow. Not some tidal wave of endless amount of snow.

I interpret it to being the reason of leaving the tent. All injuries occurred after the exit of the tent, whether that be physical attack, environment , Wolverine . I struggle to get my head round the logistics of murder of 9 people. There's easier ways to do it. Plus , I've said before and I'll say it again. An organised/ planned murder would not leave any film from cameras behind. If one is trained in killing and on a mission , you take away all potential from being found.

If it was murder it's not premeditated in my opinion. It's sloppy.

[Per Inge Oestmoen]

All the deaths are consistent with exposure and hypothermia. The avalanche theory varies from snow slide to slip of a small amount of snow. Not some tidal wave of endless amount of snow.

I interpret it to being the reason of leaving the tent. All injuries occurred after the exit of the tent, whether that be physical attack, environment , Wolverine . I struggle to get my head round the logistics of murder of 9 people. There's easier ways to do it. Plus , I've said before and I'll say it again. An organised/ planned murder would not leave any film from cameras behind. If one is trained in killing and on a mission, you take away all potential from being found.

If it was murder it's not premeditated in my opinion. It's sloppy.

The many injuries cannot be explained by accidents, and since there were injuries that were either directly lethal or lethal in combination with exposure it is fully conceivable that the killers orchestrated their cruel mission precisely in such a way as to make it look like an accident.

There are clearly easier ways to kill nine people, but there is hardly any more intelligent method than to do it in such a way as was in all probability done: Chase the victims out from their tent and let the cold do the job. Had the temperature been a little lower, it would have been a perfect mission. Since the victims did not die as fast as planned, the killing squad had to expedite the outcome. Hence the injuries.

There was no sign of an avalanche in the area, and the injuries are of course not consistent with such a natural phenomenon.

[Ziljoe]

All the deaths are consistent with exposure and hypothermia. The avalanche theory varies from snow slide to slip of a small amount of snow. Not some tidal wave of endless amount of snow.

I interpret it to being the reason of leaving the tent. All injuries occurred after the exit of the tent, whether that be physical attack, environment , Wolverine . I struggle to get my head round the logistics of murder of 9 people. There's easier ways to do it. Plus , I've said before and I'll say it again. An organised/ planned murder would not leave any film from cameras behind. If one is trained in killing and on a mission, you take away all potential from being found.

If it was murder it's not premeditated in my opinion. It's sloppy.

The many injuries cannot be explained by accidents, and since there were injuries that were either directly lethal or lethal in combination with exposure it is fully conceivable that the killers orchestrated their cruel mission precisely in such a way as to make it look like an accident.

There are clearly easier ways to kill nine people, but there is hardly any more intelligent method than to do it in such a way as was in all probability done: Chase the victims out from their tent and let the cold do the job. Had the temperature been a little lower, it would have been a perfect mission. Since the victims did not die as fast as planned, the killing squad had to expedite the outcome. Hence the injuries.

There was no sign of an avalanche in the area, and the injuries are of course not consistent with such a natural phenomenon.

I don't entirely disagree, but I think we have to look at all possibilities. It's three weeks before they found the tent, I think there may be some argument that there was a small localised snow slip / slide that may have given the impression to the dp9 that worse was to come. Enough for them to leave perhaps?

 If the last photos of them digging the trench for pitching the tent is accurate, then the spoil of the snow that they dug out, which would be roughly 2m x  5 m is not existant in the search photos. Maybe the wind errouded this pile of snow?. There would be no sign of an avalanche as we think it to be in our heads.

I agree about the fact there's easier ways to kill , if it was planned that is, but I think it would have been cold enough for them to die as they did without additional equipment.

The main injuries sustained are a possibility from the cold and a collapse of a snow cave/ bank/ weight of snow on the ravine 4.

I maybe thinking wrong , but we have 4 bodies under 3-4 meters of snow , these bodies are at ground level so the 3-4 meters of snow got on top of them some how.

We have the two Yuri's by the ceder and fire, they have burns and there are burnt clothing reported.

I don't know how to argue the point and I'll repeat, I don't rule out outsiders , I would rather rule out natural possibilities, then consider outsiders. As you suggest, it's an odd way to kill people.

[Per Inge Oestmoen]

I don't know how to argue the point and I'll repeat, I don't rule out outsiders , I would rather rule out natural possibilities, then consider outsiders. As you suggest, it's an odd way to kill people.

What I clearly stated, is that to let the cold to the grisly job is a very intelligent way of killing people: To make it look like an accident in the cold. Almost any other way of killing them would have been too obviously a murder. This method would have been a complete success, if the temperature had been low enough to kill the nine without further intervention. To chase the victims out of their tent and into the cold - what method of killing can be more cruelly intelligent, if the order from above was to make the deaths look like an accident?

Why would the investigators be instructed to close the investigation down prematurely with the conclusion that it was an accident, unless it was something entirely different?

The injuries tell their tale, and they can only be explained by lethal attack by other humans.

[Ziljoe]

I don't know how to argue the point and I'll repeat, I don't rule out outsiders , I would rather rule out natural possibilities, then consider outsiders. As you suggest, it's an odd way to kill people.

What I clearly stated, is that to let the cold to the grisly job is a very intelligent way of killing people: To make it look like an accident in the cold. Almost any other way of killing them would have been too obviously a murder. This method would have been a complete success, if the temperature had been low enough to kill the nine without further intervention. To chase the victims out of their tent and into the cold - what method of killing can be more cruelly intelligent, if the order from above was to make the deaths look like an accident?

Why would the investigators be instructed to close the investigation down prematurely with the conclusion that it was an accident, unless it was something entirely different?

The injuries tell their tale, and they can only be explained by lethal attack by other humans.

I don't entirely disagree , however, I need or want to challenge your thoughts.

Outsiders could have made the dp9 look like they were digging the trench for the tent as per the alleged last photo. The cold had already worked on several members of the group if we assume outsiders were trying to kill them in that way, that way being, death by hypothermia.

There is then no point in breaking skulls or breaking ribs? Just strangle them , there will be less evidence? Marks on the neck will not show when there is nothing but a skeleton, but broken ribs and skull fractures will?

The investigators closed it because they hadn't a clue? There were many tourist trips that ended with people losing their lives. An embarrassment all round perhaps?

The injuries say something happened for sure. We must be 100 % that those injuries ( broken ribs) could not happen in the environment. I will argue in the first hand that the ravine 4 were found under 3-4 meters of snow. I have to ask the question,, can we be certain that a mass of snow , falling on top of bodies cause these injuries. I do not have the resources to know for sure, but we have ather reports from around the world that show that broken bones from snow collapse, land slip are posable. That fact, in my opinion cannot be ignored. To me, it's the first angle we look at.

Others have put explanations forward. The potential of a tree causing the injuries for example.

If you wish to say there was a bunch of trained guys doing Kung Fu, without their pyjamas on but in heavy , 1950s clothing , I can't argue the fact.

[Marc]

For me, the most important question of the incident is _ why did the group not return to the tent after the first panic or shock (whatever caused it)? That is the key.

Something in or near the tent must have had a lasting effect and must have been completely fatal for the group.
Only one thing seems convincing to me: the human factor.

It is quite reasonable to think that someone surprised hikers that February night. And it is quite reasonable to suggest that this surprise was brutal. It is possible that the first injuries to some of the group members (head injuries, for example) came from this first contact at the tent. It is not difficult to imagine how this affected the psyche of the hikers. These individuals were ready to kill and do it very brutally if necessary.

As someone wrote above: the easiest way to complete the task is to send the hikers into the night with few clothes and no boots, without bullets and knife wounds. Probably at some point they decided to take a risk and ensure the end of the "mission". Things escalated at the edge of the forest and beyond. Methods that were not originally planned were hastily used. And this could lead to very unpredictable outcome. We should not assume that killers always followed a certain plan, even if they were somewhat professional.

If I'm not mistaken (I don't remember the exact wording and name), there was an expert leading the autopsy who said that some of the injuries could not have been caused by a human! This is a professional conclusion and a professional opinion. I have to respect that. But let's just put this assumption and conclusion aside for a moment. Is it impossible under certain conditions, with certain means?

So why are there no traces of the perpetrators? I would like to answer, but I have nothing smart to say. But I am sure that hiding the traces is not an impossible task.

More than 60 years have passed since the incident and we still don't know what happened. This is understandable in a context where the evidence does not directly support the murder theory, but cannot convincingly refute it either.
"Unknown compelling force" - is this an opinion or the best guess based on the available evidence!? Most likely I would have to give the same answer if I had been a criminal investigator myself. But that would not have stopped me from forming a personal opinion.
For me, this opinion is something like this - at least 75% probability that people are involved and 25% chance that it is a combination of bad judgment, some weather phenomenon and bad luck.

[Per Inge Oestmoen]

If I'm not mistaken (I don't remember the exact wording and name), there was an expert leading the autopsy who said that some of the injuries could not have been caused by a human! This is a professional conclusion and a professional opinion. I have to respect that. But let's just put this assumption and conclusion aside for a moment. Is it impossible under certain conditions, with certain means?

So why are there no traces of the perpetrators? I would like to answer, but I have nothing smart to say. But I am sure that hiding the traces is not an impossible task.

- The experts who participated in the investigation were instructed to close the investigation and conclude that the whole tragedy was an accident. The leader of the investigation was even called to Moscow, and it was after that the conclusion came. Also, if we take a look at the injuries we will see that the assertion that some of the injuries could not be caused by a human is demonstrably false. Any close combat practitioner can tell you that powerful elbow strikes from a trained close combat man can easily break ribs. In fact, my jiu jitsu teacher Aiain Sailly taught us precisely how that is done - and how it results in lethal damage to the chest area including broken ribs. Russian special forces are known to be perhaps the world's most proficient in close combat techniques. by the way, Lavrentij Berija introduced jiu jitsu to the special forces in the 1930's. Russian close combat techniques consist of a "marriage" of jiu jitsu and traditional Russian wrestling and striking tecniques, and is known as Sambo. I assure you, the broken ribs of Zolotaryev and Dubinina is precisely what can be expected if such competent professionals attack with lethal intent.

- There was no trace of the perpetrators because they very likely entered the area on skis after having been transported by helicopter, and because the many days that passed from the killing to the discovery of the tent and the first bodies.

- Also, the Mansi living in the area must have observed the bodies and likely also understood what happened. They were told that they were suspect, and then suddenly they were left off the hook. The unspoken message was clear: If they ever told anyone what they knew, they would be charged with the murder.

- Lastly, there was a new "investigation" into the incident in 2019, and it concluded that an avalanche was the cause of the deaths. However, it has been thoroughly demonstrated that there was not a single trace of an avalanche in the area. So, when the authorities point to a never-existing avalanche, it actually confirms that the Dyatlov pass tragedy was no accident. The nine students had very likely witnessed some state secret they were not supposed to know about. Even if none of them had ever shown any kind of disloyalty to the state, they had to be eliminated in order to ensure that they kept their silence.

[Marc]

Yes, indeed_ all of this could be as you say. I personally do not rule out any theory (except for those ridiculous alien and yeti theories) but having read most of them  and trying to imagine a realistic situation-  and i still cant get over -  these young people were killed by other people. It's surprising to me that most of these authors who propagate avalanches and weather phenomena don't open their minds more to this possibility.

Having said that, I am not at all convinced that these were killers with military training or a military background. The brutal nature of the injuries suggests more of a random and relatively poorly thought out strategy. The position of the bodies and the injuries are highly likely to have been caused by cruel and relatively unpremeditated killers. It is possible that the original goal was not to kill. But after what happened, of course, the killers must have realized that there would be a large-scale investigation, and therefore they tried to hide their tracks as much as possible or they didn't care to hide them and weather conditions and time partly did it.

Perhaps some kind of cultural conflict, personal grudge or a random chance meeting at the wrong time in the wrong place that escalated into a horrific sequence of events. There can be strange coincidences in life.

[Marc]

Thinking a little more. I am aware that many people try to delve into the past of hikers, possible connections with intelligence agencies, etc., in great detail to find clues to what happened. It is possible, but I do not particularly believe in any grand conspiracy, or state involvement. Most of the hikers were very young people and more dedicated to hiking than anything else.
Rather, I have the feeling that something simpler happened there, but the likelihood of which is not high. The Dyatlov Pass incident could easily be one of those low-probability incidents in life. Why do I mean low-probability? Because 99.99% of people do not kill another person (much less a group of people), even if you offend them, enter their territory or do not like their cultural views or personal behavior, etc. But it could have happened during the hike somewhere and somehow.
The incident happened in a relatively remote area. Other hikers or local hunters do not roam around there at night. Even if there was someone in the camp relatively close, they do what the Dyatlov group does - prepare the camp for the night.
My gut feeling is that something happened during the hike that gave someone a reason to follow the Dyatlov group and wait for a certain moment. It could have been hours before or even days. As I said before, it is entirely possible that the initial desire was not to kill, but to beat and sow fear. Why did it all turn into such a tragedy? We can speculate about this for decades to come - there are, as we know, an endless number of possibilities.
Relatively experienced hikers run out of their tent at night, gather together after the first fright, and move hundreds of meters away from the tent into the night, without proper shoes or clothes! I don't think any weather phenomenon, avalanche (of which we also have no evidence) could do that. To me - only hostile people with hostile intentions would explain such behavior.
I don't think the intruders followed them to the cedar. They didn't have to. They were just making sure the hikers couldn't get back to the tent. Maybe they waited there for a few hours and then decided the risk was too great. So, they followed the hikers' tracks and found them in different places and in different states of health. And that's where things escalated into a horrible sequence of events.
It seems that some members of the Dyatlov group tried to get back to the tent. Maybe they didn't hear anything from the tent anymore and took a chance. Apparently it was a desperate attempt, where fear of strangers no longer played a big role, because what was the chance of surviving without clothes and shoes?

Of course, all speculation.