Murder Indead

[Loose}{Cannon]

http://forum.dyatlovpass.com/index.php?topic=333.new#new

[Vietnamka]

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.

To force people out in the cold at gunpoint or by overwhelming force, and then let the winter do the work is far from unsophisticated and primitive. It is a brilliant method, which leave the public much in doubt about what happened.

agree.

What we know exactly:
- group left the tent
- group left the tent poorly dressed
- nobody died in the tent
- they had enough  power to go 1.5 km even poorly dressed
- they still had enough  power ( and clear mind) to do some work next to the cedar.
- they didn't die at the same time.
- at least 30% of them died  from the single death blows
- at least 1 of them had injuries wich could be interpritated as traces of tortures (Krivo)
- at least 2 bodies had damages wich could be interpritated as traces of abuses (Luda, Zolotarev)

Do you have idea what does it look likes? It seems to me that this is very similar to  the hostage -taking
I'm attacker
1) I show you that im absolutly serious. Group can die
2) I keep one of them and group will follow my instuctions to  take clothes off and leave the tent. It's still  a chance for them to survive and safe the life of hostage.
3) it is absolutely predictable that they are going to do during the night poorly dressed, they can not go faraway, I will find them easy.
You are not reacting? Ok, get the first victims. Do you you hear him screaming? I give you 30 min more. No reaction - more victims.
If I decide to kill I do it effectively and fast.

[sarapuk]

So can anyone piece together a credible murder narrative that has any supporting evidence?

With what EVIDENCE and other information we have, I doubt any one could piece together any kind of credible narrative as to what actually happened.

So what indicators are there that this was a murder?

Well someone thought it was a criminal act in early 1959 which is why a criminal investigation was opened. As far as I know we do not have the specific reasons as to why such an investigation was opened.

Is it because they thought it was the Mansi maybe?

We dont know.  Like I said as far as I know there is no specific reasons why the investigation was opened as a CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION.

[varuna]

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.

To force people out in the cold at gunpoint or by overwhelming force, and then let the winter do the work is far from unsophisticated and primitive. It is a brilliant method, which leave the public much in doubt about what happened.

agree.

What we know exactly:
- group left the tent
- group left the tent poorly dressed
- nobody died in the tent
- they had enough  power to go 1.5 km even poorly dressed
- they still had enough  power ( and clear mind) to do some work next to the cedar.
- they didn't die at the same time.
- at least 30% of them died  from the single death blows
- at least 1 of them had injuries wich could be interpritated as traces of tortures (Krivo)
- at least 2 bodies had damages wich could be interpritated as traces of abuses (Luda, Zolotarev)

Do you have idea what does it look likes? It seems to me that this is very similar to  the hostage -taking
I'm attacker
1) I show you that im absolutly serious. Group can die
2) I keep one of them and group will follow my instuctions to  take clothes off and leave the tent. It's still  a chance for them to survive and safe the life of hostage.
3) it is absolutely predictable that they are going to do during the night poorly dressed, they can not go faraway, I will find them easy.
You are not reacting? Ok, get the first victims. Do you you hear him screaming? I give you 30 min more. No reaction - more victims.
If I decide to kill I do it effectively and fast.

I do not believe in a hostage-taking situation, because it is an anachronic option for 59 in USSR : to get what ? It is not so easy to organize a thing like that in these conditions -plus some of them had foliowed  a basic military training-
knife wounds , all the evidence modified, all the stoy : tnet cut, the hove , the cave hiding make possible a cover for a military trained group action, wrong or not , by accident or not .
no shot : ordered so
no evidence of lethal agression ; the same

the goal : they are to die of exhaustion or cold
note
During the lLgerian war, around 58-62, some unofficial services made some killing actions in several places, against mostly OAS( secret organisation for keeping the ante situation ) ; they made a lot of mistakes , some are documented and a few had been in court  long after  .

[sarapuk]

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.

To force people out in the cold at gunpoint or by overwhelming force, and then let the winter do the work is far from unsophisticated and primitive. It is a brilliant method, which leave the public much in doubt about what happened.

agree.

What we know exactly:
- group left the tent
- group left the tent poorly dressed
- nobody died in the tent
- they had enough  power to go 1.5 km even poorly dressed
- they still had enough  power ( and clear mind) to do some work next to the cedar.
- they didn't die at the same time.
- at least 30% of them died  from the single death blows
- at least 1 of them had injuries wich could be interpritated as traces of tortures (Krivo)
- at least 2 bodies had damages wich could be interpritated as traces of abuses (Luda, Zolotarev)

Do you have idea what does it look likes? It seems to me that this is very similar to  the hostage -taking
I'm attacker
1) I show you that im absolutly serious. Group can die
2) I keep one of them and group will follow my instuctions to  take clothes off and leave the tent. It's still  a chance for them to survive and safe the life of hostage.
3) it is absolutely predictable that they are going to do during the night poorly dressed, they can not go faraway, I will find them easy.
You are not reacting? Ok, get the first victims. Do you you hear him screaming? I give you 30 min more. No reaction - more victims.
If I decide to kill I do it effectively and fast.

[1]  We dont know if any one died at the TENT   

[2] We dont know the exact causes of deaths i e if they died from single blows or multiple blows or whatever.

[3] We dont know if any one was tortured or abused.

[knocker]

Eyes being gouged out is pretty suspicious sign that mostly leads to the torture conclusion.  Maybe there are some animals in that area that would do that to a dead body, but if there aren't.  I think you have to conclude it was torture.  Though with no evidence of strangulation, throat slashing, cigarette burns, knife cuts, no wonder everybody was so perplexed at the time.  Nobody was found tied up, blindfolded or gagged.

Killers do not generally beat 4 people to death unless there was a whole bunch of them.  And I don't think that was the case.  It would have been 1 or 2, 3 at most.  3 people armed with any kind of weapons, even just sharp sticks, would have been able to control that crowd.  Which they obviously didn't do.   

[knocker]

The only hope we have of solving this is if the investigators knew the answer to the riddle and covered it up, for whatever reason.  But wrote about it in some secret report, sent it to Moscow, and it's still in the KGB records archive in the basement of FSB headquarters. 

If they didn't figure it out 60 years ago, we won't now either. 

[varuna]

Hi
Maybe some of the bunch managed to escape, il the attackers lost their control or were not enough, or the bincj decided to fight back, even with no shoes in the snow ( in this case  ) .
So some were beated up the other not and try to get back but too late ?
In a case of wrong-action-going-to-**** it is possible .

[Puchiko]

Eyes being gouged out is pretty suspicious sign that mostly leads to the torture conclusion.  Maybe there are some animals in that area that would do that to a dead body, but if there aren't.  I think you have to conclude it was torture.  Though with no evidence of strangulation, throat slashing, cigarette burns, knife cuts, no wonder everybody was so perplexed at the time.  Nobody was found tied up, blindfolded or gagged.   

Eyes are the first go for decaying corpses: birds and other small scavanger animals love them. There definitely are birds and other scavengers in the Ural mountains.  I mean, if you have the stomach to look at post-mortem pics of Lyuda and Seymon you'll see that they were basically skeletons as they were found in May, three months after the incident. The bodies found in February looked far better.

[sarapuk]

Eyes being gouged out is pretty suspicious sign that mostly leads to the torture conclusion.  Maybe there are some animals in that area that would do that to a dead body, but if there aren't.  I think you have to conclude it was torture.  Though with no evidence of strangulation, throat slashing, cigarette burns, knife cuts, no wonder everybody was so perplexed at the time.  Nobody was found tied up, blindfolded or gagged.

Killers do not generally beat 4 people to death unless there was a whole bunch of them.  And I don't think that was the case.  It would have been 1 or 2, 3 at most.  3 people armed with any kind of weapons, even just sharp sticks, would have been able to control that crowd.  Which they obviously didn't do.   

All that can be deduced from what information we have is that the EYES WERE MISSING. Nothing to suggest gouging out etc.

[sarapuk]

The only hope we have of solving this is if the investigators knew the answer to the riddle and covered it up, for whatever reason.  But wrote about it in some secret report, sent it to Moscow, and it's still in the KGB records archive in the basement of FSB headquarters. 

If they didn't figure it out 60 years ago, we won't now either.

Its an interesting point you raise.  But if it was something of such an enormity that it needed to be covered up , then it may be unlikely that we will ever know. Unless of course that were the case and eventually the Authorities opened up and let the facts be known to the whole World.

[sarapuk]

Eyes being gouged out is pretty suspicious sign that mostly leads to the torture conclusion.  Maybe there are some animals in that area that would do that to a dead body, but if there aren't.  I think you have to conclude it was torture.  Though with no evidence of strangulation, throat slashing, cigarette burns, knife cuts, no wonder everybody was so perplexed at the time.  Nobody was found tied up, blindfolded or gagged.   

Eyes are the first go for decaying corpses: birds and other small scavanger animals love them. There definitely are birds and other scavengers in the Ural mountains.  I mean, if you have the stomach to look at post-mortem pics of Lyuda and Seymon you'll see that they were basically skeletons as they were found in May, three months after the incident. The bodies found in February looked far better.

But the Post Mortem examination did not reveal any kinds of predation  !  ? 

[Puchiko]

Eyes being gouged out is pretty suspicious sign that mostly leads to the torture conclusion.  Maybe there are some animals in that area that would do that to a dead body, but if there aren't.  I think you have to conclude it was torture.  Though with no evidence of strangulation, throat slashing, cigarette burns, knife cuts, no wonder everybody was so perplexed at the time.  Nobody was found tied up, blindfolded or gagged.   

Eyes are the first go for decaying corpses: birds and other small scavanger animals love them. There definitely are birds and other scavengers in the Ural mountains.  I mean, if you have the stomach to look at post-mortem pics of Lyuda and Seymon you'll see that they were basically skeletons as they were found in May, three months after the incident. The bodies found in February looked far better.

But the Post Mortem examination did not reveal any kinds of predation  !  ?

I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what autopsy reports are like. Autopsy reports describe the state of the body - eg. "eyeballs missing" or "tongue missing". They generally don't say "a small rodent ate the eyeballs" or "a KGB agent gouged the eyeballs out with a fork", because the doctor performing the autopsy has no way of knowing that.

[Puchiko]

So can anyone piece together a credible murder narrative that has any supporting evidence?

With what EVIDENCE and other information we have, I doubt any one could piece together any kind of credible narrative as to what actually happened.

So what indicators are there that this was a murder?

Well someone thought it was a criminal act in early 1959 which is why a criminal investigation was opened. As far as I know we do not have the specific reasons as to why such an investigation was opened.

Is it because they thought it was the Mansi maybe?

We dont know.  Like I said as far as I know there is no specific reasons why the investigation was opened as a CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION.

And this is a fundamental misunderstanding of criminal law. Although the criteria differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, finding the bodies of nine healthy students without an obvious explanation will always trigger a criminal investigation. A criminal investigation gives the police procedural instruments to establish whether a crime was committed. You do not need strong evidence to open a criminal investigation, because the investigation is the only way to get that evidence in the first place. Only a small percentage of opened criminal investigations go to trial, as you need a strong case that a specific human suspect committed a crime for that to happen.

Most suicides, for instance, trigger a criminal investigation; because that's the only way you can determine that it was a suicide and rule out foul play.

[knocker]

Hi
Maybe some of the bunch managed to escape, il the attackers lost their control or were not enough, or the bincj decided to fight back, even with no shoes in the snow ( in this case  ) .
So some were beated up the other not and try to get back but too late ?
In a case of wrong-action-going-to-**** it is possible .

I think you're probably right.  It seems Dyatlov and Kolmogorova who froze to death got away and escaped the initial, "unknown force," that killed the four with the worst wounds.  I don't doubt they escaped that and lived for a few hours after.   But in the end they wound up dead like the rest, so in a sense I guess they didn't escape anything.   

[gypsy]

And this is a fundamental misunderstanding of criminal law. Although the criteria differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, finding the bodies of nine healthy students without an obvious explanation will always trigger a criminal investigation. A criminal investigation gives the police procedural instruments to establish whether a crime was committed. You do not need strong evidence to open a criminal investigation, because the investigation is the only way to get that evidence in the first place. Only a small percentage of opened criminal investigations go to trial, as you need a strong case that a specific human suspect committed a crime for that to happen.

Most suicides, for instance, trigger a criminal investigation; because that's the only way you can determine that it was a suicide and rule out foul play.

You are right, even a traffic accident or any damage that would be punishable by the criminal code if conducted deliberately, could trigger criminal investigation. Actually, the Soviet criminal justice would go ever further, SUSPICION of such acts was a basis for opening a criminal investigation. It was up to the police or the prosecutor to do so.

[sarapuk]

Eyes being gouged out is pretty suspicious sign that mostly leads to the torture conclusion.  Maybe there are some animals in that area that would do that to a dead body, but if there aren't.  I think you have to conclude it was torture.  Though with no evidence of strangulation, throat slashing, cigarette burns, knife cuts, no wonder everybody was so perplexed at the time.  Nobody was found tied up, blindfolded or gagged.   

Eyes are the first go for decaying corpses: birds and other small scavanger animals love them. There definitely are birds and other scavengers in the Ural mountains.  I mean, if you have the stomach to look at post-mortem pics of Lyuda and Seymon you'll see that they were basically skeletons as they were found in May, three months after the incident. The bodies found in February looked far better.

But the Post Mortem examination did not reveal any kinds of predation  !  ?

I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what autopsy reports are like. Autopsy reports describe the state of the body - eg. "eyeballs missing" or "tongue missing". They generally don't say "a small rodent ate the eyeballs" or "a KGB agent gouged the eyeballs out with a fork", because the doctor performing the autopsy has no way of knowing that.

Apologies.  I take it that Predation includes organisms that eat the flesh etc of bodies that have died. I didnt mean the predator that actually killed the body in question. There was no reports of such activity i e no organisms were found feeding on the dead bodies. And there were no signs of such organisms.

[sarapuk]

So can anyone piece together a credible murder narrative that has any supporting evidence?

With what EVIDENCE and other information we have, I doubt any one could piece together any kind of credible narrative as to what actually happened.

So what indicators are there that this was a murder?

Well someone thought it was a criminal act in early 1959 which is why a criminal investigation was opened. As far as I know we do not have the specific reasons as to why such an investigation was opened.

Is it because they thought it was the Mansi maybe?

We dont know.  Like I said as far as I know there is no specific reasons why the investigation was opened as a CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION.

And this is a fundamental misunderstanding of criminal law. Although the criteria differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, finding the bodies of nine healthy students without an obvious explanation will always trigger a criminal investigation. A criminal investigation gives the police procedural instruments to establish whether a crime was committed. You do not need strong evidence to open a criminal investigation, because the investigation is the only way to get that evidence in the first place. Only a small percentage of opened criminal investigations go to trial, as you need a strong case that a specific human suspect committed a crime for that to happen.

Most suicides, for instance, trigger a criminal investigation; because that's the only way you can determine that it was a suicide and rule out foul play.

What misunderstanding  ! ? It is always a decision left to the Authorities whether or not to open a Criminal Investigation. it is never a given. Who suggested that strong evidence was needed to open a Criminal investigation. And you are wrong when you say that most suicides trigger a Criminal Investigation. I know of many suicides that looked suspicious but no Criminal Investigation took place.

[sarapuk]

And this is a fundamental misunderstanding of criminal law. Although the criteria differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, finding the bodies of nine healthy students without an obvious explanation will always trigger a criminal investigation. A criminal investigation gives the police procedural instruments to establish whether a crime was committed. You do not need strong evidence to open a criminal investigation, because the investigation is the only way to get that evidence in the first place. Only a small percentage of opened criminal investigations go to trial, as you need a strong case that a specific human suspect committed a crime for that to happen.

Most suicides, for instance, trigger a criminal investigation; because that's the only way you can determine that it was a suicide and rule out foul play.

You are right, even a traffic accident or any damage that would be punishable by the criminal code if conducted deliberately, could trigger criminal investigation. Actually, the Soviet criminal justice would go ever further, SUSPICION of such acts was a basis for opening a criminal investigation. It was up to the police or the prosecutor to do so.

What makes you think that the Legal System of the USSR would go to ever further steps such as mere suspician. The Authorities made the final decision on whether or not to open a Criminal Investigation.

[gypsy]

What makes you think that the Legal System of the USSR would go to ever further steps such as mere suspician. The Authorities made the final decision on whether or not to open a Criminal Investigation.

Studying the Criminal code of The Russian SFR makes me think that. It is their job to conduct investigation and it is absolutely standard. It is the same procedure as if you reported a crime to the police or prosecutor. They are legally required to act upon that, whether the crime has been committed is irrelevant at that stage. It's for them to find out.

[sarapuk]

What makes you think that the Legal System of the USSR would go to ever further steps such as mere suspician. The Authorities made the final decision on whether or not to open a Criminal Investigation.

Studying the Criminal code of The Russian SFR makes me think that. It is their job to conduct investigation and it is absolutely standard. It is the same procedure as if you reported a crime to the police or prosecutor. They are legally required to act upon that, whether the crime has been committed is irrelevant at that stage. It's for them to find out.

If you are a student of LAW then you will know of the DISCRETIONARY actions of Police and Prosecutors and others charged with any kind of investigation. Just because something as happened that may be suspicious doesnt meant that the Authorities are going to pursue a Criminal Investigation.

[gypsy]

If you are a student of LAW then you will know of the DISCRETIONARY actions of Police and Prosecutors and others charged with any kind of investigation. Just because something as happened that may be suspicious doesnt meant that the Authorities are going to pursue a Criminal Investigation.

I have not claimed to be a law student, my education or employment is irrelevant to this case. I am open to discuss it via PM, but it is not a topic here. I only claim to have read the Criminal Code and the Criminal Procedure code of the Russian SFR along with some analyses of them. "Acting upon suspicion" was a completly standard practise and is the very reason why there were so many political pisoners in the USSR without proper conviction. The "suspicion" in Soviet sense was a stronger basis for investigation than in most western countries. And yes, there is always a human factor involved and different investigators may have different opinions about what happened, the investigation needs to be open formally in orther to narrow down the possibilities and collect the evidence.

In the case of DPI, the investigation was open, no suspect was found so there was nobody to bring before the court (also standard procedure unfortunately for us), but the context is far from standard, as is the whole case.

[sarapuk]

If you are a student of LAW then you will know of the DISCRETIONARY actions of Police and Prosecutors and others charged with any kind of investigation. Just because something as happened that may be suspicious doesnt meant that the Authorities are going to pursue a Criminal Investigation.

I have not claimed to be a law student, my education or employment is irrelevant to this case. I am open to discuss it via PM, but it is not a topic here. I only claim to have read the Criminal Code and the Criminal Procedure code of the Russian SFR along with some analyses of them. "Acting upon suspicion" was a completly standard practise and is the very reason why there were so many political pisoners in the USSR without proper conviction. The "suspicion" in Soviet sense was a stronger basis for investigation than in most western countries. And yes, there is always a human factor involved and different investigators may have different opinions about what happened, the investigation needs to be open formally in orther to narrow down the possibilities and collect the evidence.

In the case of DPI, the investigation was open, no suspect was found so there was nobody to bring before the court (also standard procedure unfortunately for us), but the context is far from standard, as is the whole case.

Why do you think that the suspicion in the Soviet sense was a stronger basis for investigation than in most Western Countries  !  ?  Plenty of Western Countries had and still have very suspicious attitudes.

[gypsy]

Why do you think that the suspicion in the Soviet sense was a stronger basis for investigation than in most Western Countries  !  ?  Plenty of Western Countries had and still have very suspicious attitudes.

That is not my thought but a proven fact, Soviet regime was far more repressive that any other Western country in 20th century. The number of people arrested or even convicted for vaguely defined crimes was just enormous. The suspects of the crimes were far less protected by the law, the presumption of innocence was not applied up to the Western Standards. A person could be held in custody for up to 9 months without the court approval. Until 1958,  there was not even a right to have a lawyer present until the trial before the court.

What is symptomatic about this case, the reports are so vague that they allow for too much speculation, some evidence was even confiscated  as if it was never an intention to solve the case. The investigators and prosecutors had enough resources and competences to pursue the case much further. Unless someone of higher rank told them otherwise.

[sarapuk]

Why do you think that the suspicion in the Soviet sense was a stronger basis for investigation than in most Western Countries  !  ?  Plenty of Western Countries had and still have very suspicious attitudes.

That is not my thought but a proven fact, Soviet regime was far more repressive that any other Western country in 20th century. The number of people arrested or even convicted for vaguely defined crimes was just enormous. The suspects of the crimes were far less protected by the law, the presumption of innocence was not applied up to the Western Standards. A person could be held in custody for up to 9 months without the court approval. Until 1958,  there was not even a right to have a lawyer present until the trial before the court.

What is symptomatic about this case, the reports are so vague that they allow for too much speculation, some evidence was even confiscated  as if it was never an intention to solve the case. The investigators and prosecutors had enough resources and competences to pursue the case much further. Unless someone of higher rank told them otherwise.

Good reply. I wont argue with that and I dont think it needs arguing with because there were clearly problems in the Soviet System, which also helped in its eventual downfall. The Soviet System was an experiment that didnt work out properly for whatever reason. And it has to be taken into account when looking at THE DYATLOV CASE. However we must remember that people are people no matter what the System, so we need to be careful with The Dyatlov Case, it may well be an event of such profoundness that would have taxed any System. Maybe any System would have needed to cover it up, we dont know because we are lacking all the evidence, etc. 

[knocker]

If I had to guess, Yuri Yuden did it.  Take a look at the photos of his diary sometime.  It was torn in half and all the pages from after he left the group are missing.  Reading what he wrote, Yuri Yuden strikes me as a disillusioned communist.  And don't forget another character in this story.  Uncle Slava.  He was a Lithuanian who was sentenced to 10 years in the gulag in 1949.  Probably picked up in the Operation Priobi roundup of political troublemakers in Lithuania in 1949 and deported to Soviet gulags.  In 1959, he would have just been released, probably not months before.   He was the group's transport provider while in town. 

As for the motive, who really knows, personal conflicts with the group, spurned romantic advances maybe on Yuden's part.  With Uncle Slava, I'd imagine he'd have every reason to want the heads of a few communist Russians after 10 year in the mines.  Put those two together and you have suspect numbers 1 and 2.     

[knocker]

This might not be true of the 1950's and 60's era Soviet Union, but when i was a teenager in the 80's we had a speaker come to our school who lived in the USSR for awhile.  He said something that took me by surprise at the time.  He said that in pure criminal cases such as rape, murder, theft, that sort of thing, the Soviet legal system was not as corrupt and biased against the defendant as in the pure political cases. 

In the case of a dissident complaining about the government, they would manufacture evidence, force people to make false statements, find witnesses who would lie during the trial, that sort of thing.  In criminal cases they didn't do that so much.  If it wasn't a crime against the state, they didn't really care enough to put in the special effort. 

If there was a coverup, it had something to do with a matter greater than just simple murder.  There was a reason for the state to feel threatened in some way.   

[sarapuk]

If I had to guess, Yuri Yuden did it.  Take a look at the photos of his diary sometime.  It was torn in half and all the pages from after he left the group are missing.  Reading what he wrote, Yuri Yuden strikes me as a disillusioned communist.  And don't forget another character in this story.  Uncle Slava.  He was a Lithuanian who was sentenced to 10 years in the gulag in 1949.  Probably picked up in the Operation Priobi roundup of political troublemakers in Lithuania in 1949 and deported to Soviet gulags.  In 1959, he would have just been released, probably not months before.   He was the group's transport provider while in town. 

As for the motive, who really knows, personal conflicts with the group, spurned romantic advances maybe on Yuden's part.  With Uncle Slava, I'd imagine he'd have every reason to want the heads of a few communist Russians after 10 year in the mines.  Put those two together and you have suspect numbers 1 and 2.   

Do really think a person could inflict all those very serious injuries  !  ?

[sarapuk]

This might not be true of the 1950's and 60's era Soviet Union, but when i was a teenager in the 80's we had a speaker come to our school who lived in the USSR for awhile.  He said something that took me by surprise at the time.  He said that in pure criminal cases such as rape, murder, theft, that sort of thing, the Soviet legal system was not as corrupt and biased against the defendant as in the pure political cases. 

In the case of a dissident complaining about the government, they would manufacture evidence, force people to make false statements, find witnesses who would lie during the trial, that sort of thing.  In criminal cases they didn't do that so much.  If it wasn't a crime against the state, they didn't really care enough to put in the special effort. 

If there was a coverup, it had something to do with a matter greater than just simple murder.  There was a reason for the state to feel threatened in some way.   

Yes that kind of makes sense when you suggest a cover up because of something greater than just simple murder.  And it would follow from that that the Higher Authorities would feel threatened in some way or certainly be very concerned.  Thats assuming there was a cover up, of course.

[varuna]

This might not be true of the 1950's and 60's era Soviet Union, but when i was a teenager in the 80's we had a speaker come to our school who lived in the USSR for awhile.  He said something that took me by surprise at the time.  He said that in pure criminal cases such as rape, murder, theft, that sort of thing, the Soviet legal system was not as corrupt and biased against the defendant as in the pure political cases. 

In the case of a dissident complaining about the government, they would manufacture evidence, force people to make false statements, find witnesses who would lie during the trial, that sort of thing.  In criminal cases they didn't do that so much.  If it wasn't a crime against the state, they didn't really care enough to put in the special effort. 

If there was a coverup, it had something to do with a matter greater than just simple murder.  There was a reason for the state to feel threatened in some way.   

Yes that kind of makes sense when you suggest a cover up because of something greater than just simple murder.  And it would follow from that that the Higher Authorities would feel threatened in some way or certainly be very concerned.  Thats assuming there was a cover up, of course.

As my opinion is in favor of the murder " solution " , it is not easy to find a real organised reason for a trained group ( whatever it may be) to make all this mess, looking like a bunch of misfits trying to cover their tracks ( they did not make it anyway ! ) 
What I mean here is : it would have been quite easy to make all these people disappear for good and to build a plausible story for this killing . GPU was the best organisation for it .