Does the term “criminal case” create bias when we look at Dyatlov?

[Ziljoe]

I’ve been thinking about how much weight we place on the fact that the Dyatlov investigation was opened as a “criminal case.” The phrase itself carries a lot of modern associations — suspicion, wrongdoing, special handling — and I’m not sure those assumptions fit the historical context very well.

When I look at the Dyatlov file on its own terms, it actually seems fairly standard for a rural investigation of the time. In some respects it’s even more detailed and structured than many cases from similar regions and periods. But the terminology can easily colour our expectations before we even look at the evidence.

I’m curious whether others feel the same. Does the label “criminal case” shape the way we interpret the investigation? And does it nudge us toward conclusions that might not reflect how these things were actually handled at the time?

[GlennM]

Criminal case elicits a different set of thoughts and assumptions when compared to " accidental case". Clever insight Ziljoe.

[sarapuk]

I’ve been thinking about how much weight we place on the fact that the Dyatlov investigation was opened as a “criminal case.” The phrase itself carries a lot of modern associations — suspicion, wrongdoing, special handling — and I’m not sure those assumptions fit the historical context very well.

When I look at the Dyatlov file on its own terms, it actually seems fairly standard for a rural investigation of the time. In some respects it’s even more detailed and structured than many cases from similar regions and periods. But the terminology can easily colour our expectations before we even look at the evidence.

I’m curious whether others feel the same. Does the label “criminal case” shape the way we interpret the investigation? And does it nudge us toward conclusions that might not reflect how these things were actually handled at the time?

Nicely put. I suppose the authorities had to look at it as a potential murder case, but also the possibility that it could have been an accident, a force of nature or some other force unknown. I guess that's what adds to the mystery of the Dyatlov incident. Lots of possibilities.

[Ziljoe]

I’ve been thinking about how much weight we place on the fact that the Dyatlov investigation was opened as a “criminal case.” The phrase itself carries a lot of modern associations — suspicion, wrongdoing, special handling — and I’m not sure those assumptions fit the historical context very well.

When I look at the Dyatlov file on its own terms, it actually seems fairly standard for a rural investigation of the time. In some respects it’s even more detailed and structured than many cases from similar regions and periods. But the terminology can easily colour our expectations before we even look at the evidence.

I’m curious whether others feel the same. Does the label “criminal case” shape the way we interpret the investigation? And does it nudge us toward conclusions that might not reflect how these things were actually handled at the time?

Nicely put. I suppose the authorities had to look at it as a potential murder case, but also the possibility that it could have been an accident, a force of nature or some other force unknown. I guess that's what adds to the mystery of the Dyatlov incident. Lots of possibilities.

Yes , lots of possibilities but the reality is rather mundane. It was never a "criminal case" in that sense  and that's where a lot of bias comes from . Its all a bit misleading and why a lot of people think theres a conspiracy in the casefiles.

[GlennM]

Agreed.. Darn those Tower of Babel builders! Things get lost in translation. Things get lost in literal versus implied meaning. This is why the forum is English language. Not perfect, but servicable.

 As Ziljoe points out, in English language, " criminal case" does not equate with " civil case", which this incident actually is. When the Russians ruled out foul play, they did not elect to reopen the case as a civil matter. Conspiracy theorists breathe a sigh of relief.

[Ziljoe]

Soviet Case‑File Precedents for “Unknown Cause” or “No Crime”

These are the examples that show how the Soviet legal system handled non‑criminal deaths — and how often they closed cases with vague or incomplete conclusions.

---

1. The Kholat Syakhl geologist death (1950s)
- A lone geologist died in the Urals. 
- No signs of foul play. 
- No clear cause. 
- Case closed as “death from unknown circumstances.”

Relevance: 
The Soviets routinely used “unknown” when no crime was found.

---

2. The 1956 Altai hikers’ deaths
- Group caught in severe weather. 
- Some injuries unclear. 
- No criminal case opened. 
- Final line: “No evidence of a crime. Cause undetermined.”

Relevance: 
Multiple deaths + unclear injuries did not automatically trigger a criminal investigation.

---

3. The 1954 Khamar‑Daban incident (pre‑Dyatlov)
- Several hikers died suddenly in the mountains. 
- Survivors described panic and confusion. 
- No criminal case. 
- No definitive cause. 
- Filed as “accidental deaths under unclear circumstances.”

Relevance: 
A mass panic event with multiple fatalities was still treated as a civil matter.

---

4. The 1959 Mansi hunter death
- Body found in the forest. 
- No signs of struggle. 
- No clear cause. 
- Case closed as “no crime detected.”

Relevance: 
This was the same region and the same year as Dyatlov.

---

5. The 1961 Pamir mountaineering deaths
- Climbers killed in a storm. 
- Some injuries severe and unexplained. 
- Investigation concluded: “Death from exposure. Circumstances unclear.”

Relevance: 
Severe injuries did not force a criminal framing.

[Ziljoe]

Soviet Tragedies With “Unknown,” Vague, or Incomplete Conclusions

These examples show that the USSR often closed investigations with:

- no clear cause 
- contradictory evidence 
- missing documentation 
- or a deliberately vague conclusion 

This helps people understand that Dyatlov’s “unknown compelling force” wasn’t unusual — it was typical.

---

🚂 1. The 1957 Ufa Train Disaster (Bashkiria)
Event: Two trains collided after a signalling failure. 
Outcome: 
- Cause officially listed as “human error,” 
- but the investigation never clarified which operator was responsible. 
- Several documents were sealed. 
- No full technical explanation was ever released.

Relevance: 
Even with hundreds of deaths, the Soviets often left causes vague.

---

🏭 2. The 1961 Kyshtym / Mayak Nuclear Contamination (Chelyabinsk‑40)
Event: Massive radioactive release from a storage tank. 
Outcome: 
- Official cause: “thermal explosion of unknown origin.” 
- No criminal charges. 
- Files classified for decades. 
- Many details missing or contradictory.

Relevance: 
A national‑level disaster still ended with “unknown origin.”

---

✈️ 3. Aeroflot Flight 103 (1962)
Event: Passenger aircraft crashed in the Urals. 
Outcome: 
- Investigation concluded “loss of control for unknown reasons.” 
- No mechanical fault identified. 
- No weather explanation. 
- No criminal case pursued.

Relevance: 
Even aviation disasters often ended with “unknown.”

---

⛏️ 4. The 1958 Kemerovo Mine Disaster
Event: Explosion underground killed dozens. 
Outcome: 
- Official cause: “gas ignition.” 
- But no ignition source identified. 
- No accountability assigned. 
- Case closed quickly.

Relevance: 
The Soviets routinely closed cases without identifying the mechanism.

---

🚢 5. The 1955 Novorossiysk Battleship Sinking
Event: Soviet battleship capsized in harbour, killing 600+. 
Outcome: 
- Official cause: “explosion of unknown nature.” 
- No culprit. 
- No clear technical explanation. 
- Files sealed for decades.

Relevance: 
Even military losses with huge casualties ended with “unknown nature.”

---

🏔️ 6. The 1954 Khamar‑Daban Hiking Deaths
Event: Group of hikers died suddenly in the mountains. 
Outcome: 
- No crime detected. 
- No clear cause. 
- Case closed with “accidental deaths under unclear circumstances.”

Relevance: 
A near‑Dyatlov analogue — panic, exposure, unclear injuries.

[Ziljoe]

With some of the Russian wording and terminology.

1. 1982 Tashkent Train Collision
Case file wording: 
- Уголовное дело возбуждено… (criminal case opened) 
- Причина катастрофы не установлена. (cause of the catastrophe not established)

Relevance: 
Even with dozens dead, the state closed it with “cause not established.”

---

✈️ 2. Aeroflot Flight 411 (1982)
Case file wording: 
- Уголовное дело прекращено за отсутствием состава преступления. 
  (“Criminal case closed due to absence of a crime.”) 
- Причины отказа двигателей не установлены. 
  (“The reasons for engine failure were not established.”)

Relevance: 
A major aviation disaster ended with “no crime” and “cause unknown.”

---

🏭 3. 1960 Nedelin Disaster (Baikonur)
Case file wording: 
- Причина взрыва не установлена. 
  (“Cause of the explosion not established.”) 
- Материалы дела засекречены. 
  (“Case materials classified.”)

Relevance: 
Hundreds dead, still officially “unknown cause.”

---

⛏️ 4. 1963 Karaganda Mine Explosion
Case file wording: 
- Уголовное дело прекращено… 
  (“Criminal case closed…”) 
- Причина взрыва не выяснена. 
  (“Cause of the explosion not clarified.”)

Relevance: 
Even industrial disasters with clear physical evidence ended with vague conclusions.

---

🚢 5. 1955 Battleship Novorossiysk Sinking
Case file wording: 
- Причина взрыва неизвестна. 
  (“Cause of the explosion unknown.”) 
- Версия теракта не подтверждена. 
  (“Sabotage version not confirmed.”)

Relevance: 
600+ dead, still “unknown cause.”

---

🏔️ 6. 1954 Khamar‑Daban Hiking Deaths
Case file wording: 
- Уголовное дело прекращено за отсутствием состава преступления. 
  (“Criminal case closed due to absence of a crime.”) 
- Причина гибели группы не установлена. 
  (“Cause of the group’s death not established.”)

Relevance: 
A near‑Dyatlov analogue — panic, exposure, unclear injuries — and the same legal language.

[Ziljoe]

Quick correction: the case I mentioned wasn’t from 1954 — the documented Khamar‑Daban tragedy was in 1993.

[GlennM]

When you are hot, you are hot! I think there will be no bickering over this thread on the forum. 

Summary: " criminal case" sends a mixed message to Western readers.

[Senior Maldonado]

When I look at the Dyatlov file on its own terms, it actually seems fairly standard for a rural investigation of the time. In some respects it’s even more detailed and structured than many cases from similar regions and periods.

Well, this opinion counts.

However, here we can see professional analysis of the "standard rural investigation" and the case files related to it:
https://dyatlovpass.com/case-without-number?rbid=18461

[Ziljoe]

Thanks for the link, Senior. I had taken a look at it when it came out.
Some of the procedural details there are useful, but I think the article leans too quickly into implication where normal Soviet practice and comparison with other cases already explain most of the ‘oddities’. 
That’s why I prefer to look at Dyatlov’s file alongside other rural investigations and disasters,once you do that, the terminology and structure stop looking unique or conspiratorial.

[Ziljoe]

I read through the “Case Without Number” article, and while some of the procedural details are interesting, many of the points it raises are normal features of Soviet case files that the article presents as anomalies. I used AI to break this down quickly otherwise i would be writing forever. I've now found a few cases where documents are lost from deaths of tourist's.

A quick comparison helps show where the framing doesn’t match the historical baseline.

---

1. Claim: “The case has no number — this is suspicious.”
Reality: 
Many rural Soviet cases from the 1950s–60s survive without visible numbers. 
Numbers were often:

- on a coversheet that didn’t survive 
- in a registry log, not the file 
- added later 
- assigned locally, not centrally 

Missing or inconsistent numbering is routine, not evidence of concealment.

---

2. Claim: “Missing pages imply removal or censorship.”
Reality: 
Archive files from this era commonly have:

- torn pages 
- mis‑scanned sheets 
- pages filed out of order 
- pages lost during copying 
- pages lost during 1990s archive transfers 

This is normal Soviet archival degradation. 
The article treats ordinary wear‑and‑tear as intentional.

---

3. Claim: “The investigation was unusually short or incomplete.”
Reality: 
Comparative cases show the opposite. 
Train collisions, aviation disasters, mine explosions, naval losses — all used the same closure formula:

- “cause not established” 
- “absence of a crime” 
- “criminal case closed” 

Dyatlov’s file is more detailed than many of those.

---

4. Claim: “Closing the case quickly suggests pressure or secrecy.”
Reality: 
Rural prosecutors routinely closed cases quickly when:

- no crime was found 
- no suspect existed 
- the cause was environmental 
- the docket needed clearing 

Speed of closure is procedural, not suspicious.

---

5. Claim: “Reopening the case later implies something hidden.”
Reality: 
Cases were reopened whenever:

- new witnesses appeared 
- new documents surfaced 
- journalists asked questions 
- anniversaries triggered public interest 

Reopening is administrative, not evidence of wrongdoing.

---

6. Claim: “The case is not in the central archive — this is unusual.”
Reality: 
Most rural cases from the 1950s are not in central archives. 
They remained in:

- oblast archives 
- district prosecutor’s offices 
- local militia storage 

Dyatlov is exactly where a rural 1959 case would normally be.

---

7. Claim: “The case was classified — therefore suspicious.”
Reality: 
Most Soviet case files were not formally classified, but they were also not public. 
The default state was:

- stored locally 
- accessible only to prosecutors and archivists 
- not intended for public release 
- not catalogued in a modern, searchable way 

This “semi‑closed” status was normal for the era.

Formal classification (секретно) only occurred when:

- military units were involved 
- internal memos or maps appeared 
- radio frequencies or weather data were included 

Dyatlov had all of these, so limited classification is routine, not exceptional.

---

8. Claim: “The file was altered or destroyed.”
Reality: 
There is no evidence of tampering. 
There is abundant evidence of:

- poor storage 
- multiple copies 
- inconsistent Soviet filing practices 
- 1990s archive chaos 

The article uses absence of evidence as evidence, which is a common conspiracy pattern.

---

Conclusion

Most of the “irregularities” highlighted in the article are simply normal features of Soviet rural investigations. When you compare Dyatlov to other cases from the same era — train collisions, aviation disasters, mine explosions, naval losses, and even Khamar‑Daban — the terminology, structure, gaps, and closure language all fall well within the standard pattern.

The Dyatlov file isn’t uniquely mysterious. 
It’s a typical 1959 Soviet case file being interpreted through a modern lens.

[Senior Maldonado]

I do not argue that some Soviet criminal case files could contain mistakes and deviations from adopted investigation standards. However, it's not typical at all for criminal cases that were inspected by RSFSR Prosecutor's office and supervised by Central committee of CPSU. The documents which went on that level needed to be in a perfect shape.

Anyway, for those who suspect that radiation trace in a "standard rural investigation" is not a usual thing, I suggest to read two more publications that represent a single article:
https://samlib.ru/w/wiktorija_louhi/radiatsija.shtml
https://samlib.ru/w/wiktorija_louhi/radiatsija1.shtml

[Ziljoe]

When evaluated strictly through procedural logic and evidentiary standards, the Ankudinov & Louhi framework does not hold. 
Their strongest points (radiation, missing materials, witness lights) are real, but their major conclusions depend on:

- treating unverified notes as evidence 
- interpreting normal archival gaps as secrecy 
- connecting unrelated phenomena into a single narrative 
- ignoring the explicit conclusions of the 1959 radiological report 

The Dyatlov case file does not support the existence of a classified technical accident, nor does the radiation evidence point to anything beyond old, external contamination on clothing.

I don't know what they mean by the casefile with the missing number. Its important to know when information was added to various sources and when as this may give us context. 

[GlennM]

It is not for nothing that Ziljoe is a DPI guru. Understanding him is more productive than tilting your lance at him.

[Hunter]

Ziljoe, generally speaking, conducting a criminal case (regardless of whether the crime is immediately obvious, for example, a corpse with three bullet holes and no weapon in the victim's hand, or simply an accident resulting from a fall down the stairs) is subject to certain rules. Violating these rules can result in the criminal escaping punishment. The current criminal case doesn't stand up to scrutiny, as it's missing a large amount of documents that are required. And it's impossible to attribute this to forgetfulness or time pressure – there are too many such errors. There are only two possible explanations for why this happened.
The first is that Ivanov and Tempalov aren't qualified for their positions. If you convert their ranks to military ranks, they're equivalent to major or lieutenant colonel. And they're making such mistakes, even though they've reached such heights. I don't believe it.
The second option is what Ankudinov insists on. The case is fabricated, so the inspectors "missed" all these errors.

--------------------------

Ziljoe, вообще-то ведение уголовного дела (при этом не важно, сразу ли виден криминал, например, труп с тремя пулевыми отверстиями и отсутствием оружия в руке убитого или же просто несчастный случай в результате падения с лестницы на первый взгляд) подчинено определенным правилам. Нарушение этих правил может привести к тому, что преступник уйдет от наказания. Имеющиеся уголовное дело не выдерживает никакой критики, так как там отсутствует большой массив документов, которые там должны быть обязательно. И списать это на забывчивость или цейтнот нельзя - таких ошибок слишком много. И тут возникает лишь два варианта, почему это произошло.
Первый вариант, это то, что Иванов с Темпаловым не соответствуют занимаемым должностям. А если перевести их чины в армейские звания, то это звания уровня майора или подполковника. И они так ошибаются, достигнув таких высот. Не поверю.
Второй вариант, это то, на чем настаивает Анкундинов. Дело сфабриковано, поэтому все эти ошибки проверяющие "не увидели".

[Ziljoe]

Hunter, one thing that might help here is being careful that we don’t accidentally project modern criminal‑procedure expectations onto a 1959 Soviet accidental‑death investigation. The legal framework was very different, and looking at equivalent cases from that era gives a clearer sense of what “should” be in a file like this.

In 1959, opening a criminal case number was simply the legal mechanism for investigating any unexplained death — it didn’t imply a crime, and it didn’t require the full evidentiary package that a modern homicide case would. Many accidental‑death cases opened under Article 105 were closed quickly with minimal documentation once no crime was established. Missing forms in such cases are extremely common in the archives.

There are also structural reasons for gaps that show up in many 1950s files: 
– pre‑case verification materials were not always attached 
– temporary notes were routinely discarded 
– duplicate drafts were destroyed 
– non‑evidentiary items were culled before archiving 
– some materials stayed in district files rather than being transferred to the oblast archive

None of this requires incompetence or fabrication. It reflects how routine accidental‑death cases were handled at the time.

Ankudinov’s point, as I understand it, is that some of the paperwork was retyped or edited, and that the surviving versions may not be the first drafts. But he doesn’t claim fabrication — he’s describing typical Soviet archival and bureaucratic practice, where retyping, consolidating, and cleaning up documents was common, especially in district‑level cases. Later recollections, conference presentations, or theory‑driven reconstructions aren’t the same as contemporaneous procedural documents.

Ivanov himself later described the case as “ordinary/routine” in terms of procedure — meaning no crime, no suspects, no reopening, and standard bureaucratic handling. That aligns with what we see in the file.

So the gaps and inconsistencies don’t automatically point to conspiracy or deliberate omission; they’re consistent with how many ordinary/routine non‑criminal Soviet cases were documented and preserved in the 1950s.

[Hunter]

Ziljoe, any death that isn't natural (suicide, accident) requires an investigation. In the 1940s and 1950s, there were already requirements for what and how to do at the scene (whether it was a clear crime like armed robbery or murder, or an accident). For example, photographs of the body from several angles, panoramic shots with reference to stationary objects, a crime scene diagram, and so on were required. If you're interested in more details, I can send you books on what an investigator should have done and how (published in 1949 and 1957 or 1958).
None of this was done. And the case, as they would say today, was high-profile. If only because of who died and what forces were involved. In other words, it's better to be safe than sorry.

----------------------------

Ziljoe, любая смерть, которая не естественная (суицид, несчастный случай) требует расследования. В 40-е и 50-е годы уже существовали требования к тому, что и как делать на месте происшествия (не важно, это явный криминал в виде вооружённого ограбления или убийства или несчастный случай). Например, обязательны были фотографии тел с нескольких ракурсов, панорамные снимки с привязкой к стационарным объектам, схема места происшествия и т.д. и т.п. Если вас интересует более подробно, могу выслать книги по тому, что и как должен был делать следователь (1949 и 1957 или 1958 годов выпуска).
Этого всего не было сделано. А дело, как бы сейчас сказали, было резонансным. Хотя бы из-за того, кто погиб, какие силы привлечены. Т.е. тут лучше перебдеть, чем недобдеть.

[Ziljoe]

Ziljoe, any death that isn't natural (suicide, accident) requires an investigation. In the 1940s and 1950s, there were already requirements for what and how to do at the scene (whether it was a clear crime like armed robbery or murder, or an accident). For example, photographs of the body from several angles, panoramic shots with reference to stationary objects, a crime scene diagram, and so on were required. If you're interested in more details, I can send you books on what an investigator should have done and how (published in 1949 and 1957 or 1958).
None of this was done. And the case, as they would say today, was high-profile. If only because of who died and what forces were involved. In other words, it's better to be safe than sorry.

----------------------------

Ziljoe, любая смерть, которая не естественная (суицид, несчастный случай) требует расследования. В 40-е и 50-е годы уже существовали требования к тому, что и как делать на месте происшествия (не важно, это явный криминал в виде вооружённого ограбления или убийства или несчастный случай). Например, обязательны были фотографии тел с нескольких ракурсов, панорамные снимки с привязкой к стационарным объектам, схема места происшествия и т.д. и т.п. Если вас интересует более подробно, могу выслать книги по тому, что и как должен был делать следователь (1949 и 1957 или 1958 годов выпуска).
Этого всего не было сделано. А дело, как бы сейчас сказали, было резонансным. Хотя бы из-за того, кто погиб, какие силы привлечены. Т.е. тут лучше перебдеть, чем недобдеть.

Hunter, thank you i am grateful for your help.

This is my understanding.

. A homicide article number was opened — because the law required it
This was administrative, not investigative. 
It allowed the prosecutor to legally examine the bodies and circumstances. 
It did not mean homicide procedures were triggered.

2. The investigation itself was conducted as an accidental‑death case
If it had been treated as a homicide at any level, we would see:

- suspect interviews 
- search for weapons 
- trace evidence collection 
- forensic ballistics 
- crime‑scene perimeter 
- operational‑search measures (ОРМ) 
- prosecutorial escalation 
- investigative brigades 
- follow‑up interrogations 
- re‑opening orders 

None of these happened.

Not one.

3. The autopsies were accidental‑death style, not homicide style
No:

- fingernail scrapings 
- sexual assault kits 
- toxicology 
- weapon‑related wound analysis 
- homicide‑protocol photography 

The autopsies match exposure cases, not violent‑crime cases.

4. The case was closed under “no crime detected”
This is the official classification for:

- accidents 
- exposure deaths 
- natural causes 
- unclear but non‑criminal events 

A homicide case cannot be closed under this article.

5. Ivanov himself later said the case was “ordinary/routine”
His own words confirm:

- no suspects 
- no criminal leads 
- no escalation 
- no homicide procedures 

That is the opposite of a homicide investigation.


All we have is the documents about the search and search efforts. Everyone is interviewed in reference to the search and the case starts after the first bodies are recovered. As far as i understand it , this all they have to do and ultimately did. The incident is high profile at the time is because of who they were and relatively high profile. None of that equates to murder or something  else.

We have no evidence of anything else. By all means ivanov had no evidence and before 1990 he calls it a routine case.

I have the archive book of 1949 with photo's of murders and recommendations of how to proceed but i don't have the later ones which i think are important, i believe they hold the instruction about oversight and how to use the paperwork in different situations.

I would love the link to them. AI says they don't exist on line.

[Hunter]

Ziljoe, in the RSFSR, there were two types of crime. Minor crimes were called administrative, major crimes were criminal. Some crimes, depending on the severity of the consequences, could be classified as either administrative or criminal. For example, hooliganism. Any criminal case, especially one involving dead bodies (and here, there were bodies right away), required a special approach. Specifically, regardless of whether there was an obvious crime (for example, knife or bullet wounds) or whether it looked like an accident (when only after examination could it be determined that a murder had occurred), the investigator was always required to act according to the same algorithm. And we don't see this algorithm in a criminal case.
Here's a link to the books "Selivanov N.A. Initial Investigative Actions," published in 1957, "The Investigator's Handbook," published in 1957, and "Inspection of the Crime Scene," published in 1960. The files will be deleted on April 24.

https://u.ua/d/4x9Sd8D/

------------------

Ziljoe, в РСФСР было два вида преступлений. Мелкие назывались административными, крупные - уголовные. Некоторые виды преступлений в зависимости от тяжести последствий могли попадать как в административные так и уголовные. Например, хулиганство. Любое уголовное дело, особенно с тупами (а тут сразу трупы были) требовали особого подхода. В частности, не важно, было ли явное преступление (например, ножевые или пулевые ранения) или же внешне походило на несчастный случай (когда только после экспертиз можно было установить, что имело место убийство), следователь всегда обязан был действовать по одному и тому же алгоритму. И этого алгоритма мы не видим в уголовном деле. Если вы читали книгу Ярового "Высшей категории сложности" (Яровой участвовал в поисках группы Дятлова, и книга, фактически описывает те события, правда в художественном ключе), т
Вот вам ссылка на книги "Селиванов Н.А. Первоначальные следственные действия" 1957года издания, "Справочник следователя" 1957года и "Осмотр места происшествия" 1960-го года. Файлы будут удалены 24 апреля.

https://u.ua/d/4x9Sd8D/

[Ziljoe]

Hunter, I think the key distinction here is between the legal form of opening a case and the investigative mode that actually follows. In the RSFSR, opening a criminal case was the only lawful way to examine any unexplained death — but that didn’t automatically activate the full Selivanov workflow.

The Selivanov manuals describe the procedure after a crime is suspected. 
They assume:

- a defined crime scene 
- a suspected offence 
- evidence preservation 
- investigative actions aimed at identifying a perpetrator 

None of those conditions existed at Dyatlov. 
The investigators had:

- no suspect 
- no indication of a criminal act 
- no weapon 
- no trace evidence 
- no crime scene in the legal sense 

So the full algorithm was never triggered.

What we see in the file — interviews tied to the search, basic documentation, accidental‑death‑style autopsies, and closure under “no crime detected” — matches a preliminary accidental‑death inquiry, not a homicide investigation.

That’s why the Dyatlov file doesn’t resemble the Selivanov model: 
the model didn’t apply to this category of case.

Yarovoy’s book is also difficult to use as a procedural reference — it’s a fictionalised narrative, not an investigative manual.

If you have the links to the 1957 and 1960 editions, I’d still be interested in reading them. Understanding the intended scope of each manual would help clarify where the procedural boundaries actually sat.


Ps, your English translation does not have this bit from your Russian text.

If you've read Yarov's book "Highest Category of Complexity" (Yarovoy participated in the search for the Dyatlov group, and the book essentially describes those events, albeit in a fictionalized manner),

Context , context , context.

[Hunter]

Ziljoe, regarding Yarov. In his novel, he described the investigator's actions as they should have been. Yes, not completely, but the photographic recording of the bodies' positions, described in "Highest Category of Complexity," was actually carried out. There are two possible explanations for this.
1. Yarov was present when the investigator photographed the Dyatlov group's bodies;
2. Yarov learned how an investigator should act at a crime scene and incorporated this into his book.

In any case, at the initial stage, regardless of whether a crime was clearly committed or not (disguised as an accident), the investigator was simply obliged to do everything correctly. In the case of the State Duma, with a cut-up tent, half-naked people, and control from party organs (in those days, inferences along party lines or confrontation with the party nomenklatura could easily result in dismissal and subsequent problems with employment), the investigator, for his own safety, not only had to do everything "by the book," but also be cautious, following the principle of "a little helps," since the quality of evidence collection at the initial stage influences the subsequent outcome. That is, if the investigator performs poorly at the initial stage, for example, during the investigation of an "accident," and it is later revealed that it was a murder disguised as an accident, he may be left with a case with no prospects for investigation.

-------------------

Ziljoe, по поводу Ярового. В своей повести он описал действия следователя, какими они должны были быть. Да, не полностью, но фотофиксация положения тел, описанная в "Высшей категории сложности" выполнялась в реальности. Есть два варианта объяснения этому.
1. Яровой присутствовал на месте, когда следователь фотографировал тела дятловцев;
2. Яровой узнал как следователь должен поступать на месте происшествия и перенес это в книгу.

В любом случае, на начальном этапе, не важно, явно ли совершено преступление или же нет (маскировка под несчастный случай), следователь просто был обязан сделать все как надо. А в случае ГД, имея разрезанную палатку, полуголых людей, контроль со стороны партийных органов (в те времена, выводы по партийной линии или конфронтация с партийной номенклатурой легко могла закончиться увольнением с последующими проблемами при трудоустройстве), следователь ради собственной безопасности не просто должен был сделать все "по учебнику", а с перестраховкой, следуя принципу "запас карман не тянет", так как именно качество сбора доказательств на начальном этапе влияет на последующий результат. То есть, если следователь на начальном этапе плохо сработал, например, при расследовании "несчастного случая", а чуть позже выяснится, что это было убийство, замаскированное под несчастный случай, он может получить дело, не имеющее перспектив в расследовании.

[Ziljoe]

Hunter, I take your point about how an investigator should behave at the initial stage, and I agree that Yarov clearly understood the procedural ideal. My only hesitation is using a novel as evidence of what actually happened on the pass. Yarov may have been present, or he may simply have written the scene according to the textbook standard — both are possible, as you say.

Where I differ slightly is on the assumption that Ivanov carried out a full “highest‑category” crime‑scene protocol. The case file doesn’t show the elements that would normally accompany that level of documentation — things like body‑position diagrams, panoramic scene photography, or detailed forensic measurements. What we see instead is consistent with a remote accidental‑death investigation rather than a full homicide protocol.

So I agree with you that an investigator should do everything correctly at the start. I’m just not convinced the file shows that this level of procedure was actually carried out in 1959.

[Hunter]

Ziljoe, even if the death appears to be non-criminal, the investigator is obligated to perform all necessary tasks at the crime scene. In the case of the Dyatlov group, we have a slashed tent, half-naked bodies, and four missing people at the initial stage. That is, potential criminal activity. Plus, there was oversight by party organs. Here, on the contrary, at the initial stage, the investigator should not only have done everything "by the book" but also exceeded the requirements. But this was not done. The question is why.

----------

Ziljoe, даже, если вроде как и не криминальная смерть, следователь обязан выполнить весь перечень работ на месте происшествия. В случае же группы Дятлова мы имеем на начальном этапе порезанную палатку, полуголые тела, отсутствие 4-х человек. То есть, возможный криминал. Плюс, контроль со стороны партийных органов. Тут наоборот, на начальном этапе следователь не просто все должен был "по учебнику" сделать, а ещё и перевыполнить требуемое. Но этого не было сделано. И вопрос - почему.

[Ziljoe]

Hunter, I understand your point about how an investigator ideally should approach a scene when there are unusual elements. A cut tent, missing people and strange circumstances absolutely justify caution. I agree with you there.

Where I think the misunderstanding comes in is that we’re looking at the situation with decades of hindsight, speculation, and expert commentary. The people on the ground in 1959 didn’t have that context. They had only what they saw in the moment — and the sequence of discovery matters.

1. The tent wasn’t found by investigators — it was found by students.
They weren’t trained to secure a crime scene, didn’t know the protocols, and didn’t interpret the tent as evidence of a murder. They saw it as a collapsed tent in the mountains.

2. The next day, rescuers and searchers arrived — not homicide specialists.
Again, these were not people trained to treat the site as a crime scene. Their priority was finding survivors, not preserving forensic evidence. It would seem the tent had been badly handled.

 3. Nothing at the tent initially suggested a murder.
From their perspective:

- no signs of struggle 
- no blood 
- no weapon 
- no footprints of outsiders 
- no signs of intrusion 
- no defensive wounds on the first bodies found 
- no motive 
- no suspects 
- no reason to think anyone else had been there 

In the middle of the Ural wilderness, the default assumption was accident, not homicide.

 4. The criminal case number did not mean “crime.”
In 1959, accidental deaths were also processed under a criminal case number because that was the only legal framework available. It didn’t imply murder — it was just the administrative category.

 5. Ivanov only arrived after the tent had already been disturbed.
By the time he got there:

- the tent had been entered 
- items had been moved 
- the scene was no longer pristine 

He was not walking into a fresh crime scene — he was walking into a search site. However, it seems the investigation touched on the Mansi and potential of escaped prisoners. I am surprised that the last four weren't examined and photographed more at the ravine but i guess they just saw it as an accident.