Unknown pursuers

[Axelrod]

Text for  (part 5, from 9th min.):

The mystery of Dyatlov Pass. Have the killers been found? Part 5 February 18, 2021 - (c 9-й минуты):



[–] And then further there, strictly to the north, beyond the ridge there is already Otorten. But the guys did not get there. Their tent was somewhere around here. I am going down there... But before that, I will now observe this place through binoculars again.



I can clearly see individual trees. I can even see pine branches. Even in such weather, in the fog... But closer – several rows of stones. Now we climbed up on foot from there. I can tell you – it is very difficult to walk! You try to choose the crust. One step to the side – and you immediately fall through...

Today the same southwest wind is blowing... As I already said, it was hard to go up. It will be easier to go down. But running here is completely out of the question. It does not work. It's impossible.

[–] I moved a little to the side. Two steps on the hard snow, and the next step – and you fall through, somewhere up to your knees, somewhere up to your ankles. But you don't fall through up to your waist, like in the forest zone.


[–] I went down to the forest. I even had to change my hat. The hat was wet. The last 200 meters are very hard to walk, very hard. Every time you move your foot, you fall through again. (…)
   
Behind is Mount Kholat Syakhl. From here you can see my starting point perfectly. Everything is in perfect view. That point ahead was the edge of the forest in 1959. Several tributaries and streams converge in this lowland.



[–] I am now at the place that, it seems to me, was the observation point. From here you can see the entire slope perfectly.

You don't even need binoculars to see the movement of people on the mountain, the setting up of a tent. The wind was strong on the pass. At the tent site, the wind is much weaker. (…)

When we descended into the forest zone, there was no wind at all. The photographs show the "white wall" effect. In reality, when you stand on the slope, everything can be seen quite far through the haze.
I assume that by the time Dyatlov's group began setting up the tent, the pursuit group was already at the cedar, where they had made a flooring for themselves. They did not catch up with them at the last overnight stop, otherwise the massacre would have taken place there.

 

The pursuit group reaches the edge of the forest (the pass) and sees a group of tourists moving away from them along the bare slope of Mount 1079. They did not dare to pursue the tourists in the bare terrain, so after the pass they sharply turn right, towards the forest.



The distance from the pass to the tent site is approximately 1 km. The pursuers did not fully understand why the tourists had stopped. They see that on the mountain slope the tourists have stopped, taken off their backpacks, there is some activity going on there...





As I have already told you, the slope is clearly visible from below. And here you can ask me a question: if the pursuit group saw the tourists, could the tourists see them? Yes, it is possible. The slope is mutually visible. Yes, we can assume that the four tourists (Zolotarev, Thibault-Brignolle, Dubinina and Kolevatov) went down not for firewood, but to meet those "tourists" whom he saw. But I still adhere to a different point of view. The pursuers remained unnoticed in their movement, and they noticed how 4 people separated from the group of tourists on the slope and began to move down. Why? Perhaps the tourists went for firewood. When I voiced this in the first part, a lot of questions (absolutely logical) were asked to me.

For example, why didn't the tourists take a few logs in their backpacks in the morning, especially since they left some of their things in the storage shed? And, accordingly, if they didn't take firewood there, then why did they go here for firewood? No, Igor Dyatlov was not looking for easy ways, he deliberately chose a route through bare terrain and decided to spend a cold night there, without a fire in the stove. Indeed, at first glance this seems illogical. But let's try to model this situation differently. So, Dyatlov's group has been traveling along the route for several days. All this time they have been moving through the zone forests, heat the stove and spend the night very comfortably.

But we must take into account the context. Igor Dyatlov was set on very harsh tourism. And he wanted to create a certain difficulty. He was deliberately going for an escalation. That is why Dyatlov forbade taking firewood with him, leaving it in the storage shed. But in fact, having found himself on the slope of Mount 1079, this decision was cancelled. Why? The air temperature dropped sharply, a very strong wind was blowing there, this decision of Dyatlov was cancelled, and then they needed firewood...
Who went for firewood? There were 2 leaders in the group – Dyatlov and Zolotarev. The experienced Zolotarev and 2 guys went for firewood. Dubinina went along for the company, just for a walk.
   
You are asking the question – they went for firewood and took a girl with them? This should not be a refuting argument: Dubinina and Kolmogorova were very trained athletes, and they could easily drag 2-3 logs up with them!

About the cedar. Over 60 years, the surrounding forest has grown very seriously. Four tourists are moving towards the first cedar, and the pursuit group begins to approach them. In our opinion, the meeting took place near the cedar. There their paths crossed. Perhaps the tourists even got used to harvesting firewood.



What happened next? The criminals captured these 4 tourists, forced them to move another 75 meters down, to the area of ​​the stream. Why? They forced the tourists to move to the lowest point, which was no longer visible from the pass. There they kill them... Then the criminals decide to lure the remaining tourists out of the tent. Darkness falls, and they light a fire as a landmark. The path is trodden. They patiently wait for the 5 tourists to come looking for their missing comrades. The guys in the tent are calmly preparing for dinner. They cut up a loin, drew a newspaper "Evening Otorten". They are waiting for the guys with firewood. But they do not return. Dyatlov justifiably begins to worry, goes to look for them. In order to be able to return to the tent and not miss, not to pass by, they leave the 1st flashlight there (which was found by Slobtsov and Sharavin), go down, pass several stone ridges and leave the 2nd flashlight there.

The scree there is not mortally dangerous, I passed it completely calmly. If only you do not run there, then you can step over these stones without injuries. These are not some kind of mountains that you need to climb over! It is half a meter high.

They go in the direction of the forest, they go along the same road. They see a fire near a cedar. Now the cedar is in dense vegetation. So, Dyatlov moves in the darkness along the slope. There is already quite deep snow there. And at the fire they fall into the hands of bandits. In my opinion, the intention of the criminals was this: to escort five tourists there down to the stream and deal with them there too. But, apparently, something went wrong... Most likely, Dyatlov quickly realized the threat that hung over them. And, contrary to the demands of the criminals, they did not go down to the stream. And here, near the cedar, a brutal fight broke out.

The injuries on the bodies indicate that the guys actively resisted. As a result of this resistance, they ended up in the form and in the places where they were found. But the attackers, most likely, received certain injuries. Why do I think so? Look, the criminals took the first four tourists to a ravine and threw them into the stream there. But then this plan failed. Five tourists desperately resisted this. Although, from the point of view of the logic of the criminals, burying all the tourists in the stream would have been the most profitable scenario!

Just imagine: the search for the tourists is underway, a tent is found, but the bodies are nowhere to be found. There is nothing except nine tracks on the slope. Where exactly should we look for the tourists? Which way should we go? Where to dig? (…) They would have been found in June, when the snow melted. The bodies were already seriously damaged. There were a lot of bears there.
   
And the real causes of death in June could not have been established by any forensic expert. But the criminals' plan did not work. The tourists were scattered over a large distance. Kolmogorova was halfway from the cedar to the tent. The other guys were also on the way to the tent.

I will try to assume that the criminals tried to move them down.



I was led to this idea by the ring wound on Dyatlov's leg. It could have been either a rope or a belt, which they could have used to wrap the rope around Dyatlov's leg, eventually dragging him into the forest area. Most likely, he got caught on the birch tree near which he was found. It must be understood that all this happened in the dark, and there was deep snow. In the end, they abandoned this intention and abandoned Dyatlov halfway. Accordingly, they did not touch the bodies of Slobodin and Kolmogorova, did not try to drag them. Their bodies were left lying where they were found. And this plan to bury everyone in one mass grave remained unrealized.

Indirectly, this can be indicated by the jacket or sweater wound around Dubinina's leg. In general, there are many different opinions about this fact. Why is there a sweater wound around one leg, and nothing on the other? This moment does not find any logical explanation. I can assume that the method they used in an attempt to transport Dyatlov's body down the slope was also used in relation to Dubinina's body. Imagine that by this time the criminals already had things left by Krivonischenko and Doroshenko at their disposal. They take this sweater, wrap it around Dubinina's leg and drag her to the stream. This is my guess, but it at least explains the presence of a sweater on one leg instead of two.

[GlennM]

I appreciate the thinking and careful expression of this and your other posts, Axelrod. You make an interesting point that murderers would not leave traces at the tent because they were never there to begin with. You attribute both actions and injuries as consequences of hostilities.

There are some issues that need clarification for me. 1. Why would murderers kill the hikers and not rob them? 2. Why would the murderers not hide the corpses? 3. Is it reasonable for Igor, who decided not to bring firewood to assign four people to travel a mile in total to bring armloads of wood uphill in biting cold while Igor and his friends stayed in the tent? 4. All behavior is motivated, what motivation is there for murder when simply avoiding the hikers is more efficient? 5. When the murderers left the area they went somewhere and this would be noted because it is conspicuous. There is no mention of this at all. The criminal investigators suspected Mansi, who were exonerated. Surely they looked elsewhere and found nothing.. 6 they didn't have a copy of Dyatlov's route or expected return at the college., therefore the hostilities could not be plotted. Is it likely on the slopes of a windswept frigid lonely mountainside that malefactors would even know where to look?  I think we get fooled by looking at photos and not appreciating the vastness of these areas.

[Axelrod]

From first his speech:

The mystery of the Dyatlov Pass. Have the killers been found? (High school, Alexey Ermakov/Alexey Zaslavsky, January 7, 2021). The whole version is presented there within 8-10 hours, here’s the gist of it:



[–] Who could have committed this crime and why? Having discarded all the untenable versions that I had already listed, I suddenly came to the understanding that these people had a huge score to settle with the Soviet government. To the Soviet government in general, and perhaps to one of them in particular (to Zolotaryov?). But more on that later. So, the most important thing is the motive. This motive is hatred of the Soviet state, of the Soviet system. That is, these are people who suffered greatly from the Soviet regime. And further thought led me to the conclusion that these were people who had long sentences as a result of the war, namely the war. This whole story is an echo of war. They served these sentences, there for 10 years or more, in camps in the Northern Urals. By the time this whole tragedy happened, they had already been released, but they remained in those northern places and continued to work in the same logging operations where thousands of prisoners worked there. That is, my opinion: in a past life, before the camp, these people were one of those who actively fought the Soviet regime with arms in hand. Perhaps they were Ukrainian nationalists. Perhaps these were “forest brothers” from the Baltic states. Maybe they were Russian people. Perhaps these were people from among those who in the Soviet Union suffered greatly from the Soviet regime.

QUESTION: So, we've heard who you suspect might be these killers. Why were the Dyatlovites chosen as victims?

[–] So, we are transported to January 1959. A group of student tourists from the Polytechnic Institute are going on a hike. A very difficult route, tourist groups have not gone there before, and Igor Dyatlov set himself a very ambitious task: to conquer Mount Otorten.
   
And what’s interesting is that they timed this trek to coincide with the 21st Congress of the CPSU, which was held in Moscow from the end of January to February 5, 1959. All the documents say that they wanted to make such a gift to the congress! The guys themselves dropped 350 rubles there. But this amount they collected was not enough, and the institute gave more money, just in time for congress.

And they, these guys, these Komsomol members with bright thoughts, with bright ideas, found themselves in a very specific place and in a very specific environment. As you know, they went to the cinema there and watched 3 movies. That is, they were in this environment for some time. They were in fairly close contact there, that is, they talked, talked about their upcoming trek, and were proud of it. They presented it as a fairly bright upcoming event in their lives. And this whole little world in Vizhay, he was aware that these guys, students, Komsomol members had arrived here in the north, that they wanted not only to go to Mount Otorten, but to do it as a gift to the Soviet government, a gift to the 21st Congress CPSU.

Their stay in this northern region was quite open, and the people who lived there saw them, they knew, they understood who came to them, where they would go (and in honor of what they would go!)

And here, it seems to me, some fatal mistake occurred. The tourists, of course not suspecting anything and of course not suspecting anyone, in this dialogue somehow told about themselves these intentions. And this is someone who later became the organizer of this entire murder. He heard all this about the gift to the CPSU Congress, but of course he didn’t give any form of it. He was a man who had lived a very hard life, a stern man, who had gone through very severe trials, both during the war and after the war… He mentally let them go on this trek, but then, I think, a very serious struggle flared up inside him. He was filled with these feelings of hatred: “Oh, you want to make a gift to the Soviet government! Do you want to make a gift to the 21st Congress of the CPSU? I will give you this gift! It seems to me that at that moment a strong desire arose within this man to take revenge on the Soviet authorities for all his suffering, for all his troubles. which he, his family and perhaps those around him suffered.

We don't know who this person is yet. But he, in his opinion, had every moral right to take revenge on the entire Soviet state, and to take revenge on those who personify this state.

Why didn't he do this earlier? Yes, because in this Vizhay there was actually no one to take revenge on. There around him lived exactly the same people who were not at all suitable for the role of representatives of the Soviet government. Yes, of course there were law enforcement officers, internal troops, and camp guards, but they were all quite stern, armed people, and they were all ready for this attack. And revenge on them, apparently, did not form in this man’s head. And then suddenly these 10 people come to him right in the North, who are glowing, their faces are glowing with this kind of clear, such a good attitude towards the Soviet government, towards the Soviet state. Pure, focused on the future with some goals…

Many versions are connected with the fact that Yudin’s departure was not accidental, that the motive was not the same, and he could not ski back 25 km.

A group of pursuers follows in their footsteps. The distance between them is gradually decreasing. Why? Because the Dyatlovites are looking for a way. Then they stop, because you need to clear away the ice. Well, in general they walk at a fairly measured pace. And at some point the pursuers saw that the tourists had stopped and were beginning to set up camp. In my mind, two pursuers were resting on the deck, and one was observing. The deck was located next to a stream. Doroshenko and Krivonischenko apparently entered into a fight with them, Dyatlov himself and Zinaida Kolmogorova he-- The three rushed back to the tent.

Over the last 20 years, a lot of factual circumstances have been very actively discussed, where what was found, who was wearing what, who was undressed in what way, where what things were lying around… The flooring is not a flooring, the fire is not a fire, the tents are cut. There are too many facts. But not a single version can compile them into something unified and explain everything. Let's say one version explains one set of facts, but it contradicts another set of facts, and so on in a circle…

[GlennM]

True! Conspiracy theories of murder seem circular. Natural causes from weather is linear. I support the latter because there are fewer assumptions and forced connections. What made them leave the tent? Wind, snow, cold and the threat of suffocation are reasons enough.unless it can be demonstrated those things did not exist at the time. 

The reason alternate theories exist is because weather phenomena are transient.  In science it comes down to plausibility backed by supporting evidence. I feel it is less plausible for Igor to divide the hiking party and have four people trek down and up a mountainside nearly a mile for wood. I find it less plausible that asassins would be at that location in the Urals and serendipitously tag four people out in the wild by luck or plot. I find it implausible that when DP9 hiker's prints and ski traces are found but not a single trace of anyone else is discovered.

Axelrod does scholarly research, but does not adopt one theory. He gives us various proposals that are good supporting evidence in the event that one of the ideas is found to be the one. It is a good attempt to move the needle toward truth  because we can appreciate and debate the positives and negatives of these ideas, remembering we are all on the same team, but temporarily taking different sides.