New Suspect In Case

[fungoorstitch]

There actually is someone in the case who had motive to commit this assault - if that's what it was. The belligerent drunkard from the train who accused them of stealing his flask. Zina refers to the incident in her diary. She doesn't deny the crime, which probably means they did do it. What if the guy gathered some friends and went after them? It's a stretcher, but still above Yeti on the list.

[GlennM]

And above LGM too

[Ziljoe]

I think it's logistically to difficult and would leave a trail of evidence. The injuries are consistent with a fight to survive against the conditions they found themselves . The autopsies explain the cause of deaths by cold and hypothermia and then compression to the ravine 4 .

[Hunter]

Actually, some investigators of the tragedy tried to make this drunk a suspect. But one against nine—you've seen enough action movies.

[GlennM]

The drunk way not have used a straw, but supposing he shadowed and attacked the hikers is certainly reaching for one.

[Hunter]

1 пьяный против 6 парней и мужчин? Вряд ли. Ему бы надавали по шее.

ENGLISH TRANSLATION:
1 drunk against 6 guys and men? Hardly. He would have been given a neck.

[GlennM]

Perrhaps more to the point is that the hike had elements of self discipline baked into the excursion. Aside from the actual rigors of the hike, there was supposedly a swearing off of cigarettes and alcohol for the duration. Both are exceedingly tempting to the user. I would not put it past Rustem to sneak the drunks drink, but that is where it ends  As we all know, alcohol is a depressant and while the burn and the flushed skin give the illusion of warmth, the reality is the opposite. My point is that purloined alcohol is not enough to do anything more than cause friction. More mention was given to sharing a tangerine than to any alcohol related incidents or accidents on the way to Ortoten.

[Hunter]

It's impossible to secretly drink or smoke on a hike. Plus, cigarettes could have been used to "build bridges"—to facilitate communication with locals and other tourists. It's unlikely that the alcoholic on the train had a bottle stolen; more likely, he was trying to profit at the tourists' expense.

[James2006]

My personal theory is that the Dyatlov Pass group may have intentionally planned to investigate or approach something they already knew about, possibly related to a secret military or nuclear experiment taking place in the area.

If they encountered something unexpected, such as a military test, toxic gases, or another dangerous event, it could explain why they suddenly left their tent. I also think it’s possible that some of the severe injuries may have resulted from falling into the ravine after fleeing.

I also have questions about Yuri Yudin, the only member who turned back before the incident. The explanation that he left because of back pain or sciatica mainly comes from his own account. Since he wasn’t there when the tragedy happened, we can’t independently verify that this was the real reason. Because of that, I think it’s reasonable to question whether he chose not to continue for another reason, especially if the group had a specific objective beyond a normal hiking expedition.

Finally, I can’t completely rule out another possibility: that Yuri Yudin himself may have been involved in some way. I have no direct evidence for this, and I’m not claiming it as fact, but I think it is another possibility worth considering until all the unanswered questions surrounding the case are fully explained.

This is only my personal hypothesis, not a conclusion. I’m interested in hearing evidence or arguments that support or challenge these ideas

[Hunter]

There are various theories surrounding Yudin's departure. Officially, it's health issues. Other theories include:
1. Yudin was recruited as an extra to secure permission for the expedition. The plan was for him to leave the group at the final "return" point and go home. There are two possibilities: he never rejoins the group (option 1), or he rejoins at the final point, the group's diary is erased, and on paper, Yudin completed the expedition (option 2).
2. Yudin found a cache of gold belonging to "black prospectors" in the 2nd Northern Pass and retrieved it. Then, citing health reasons, he left the group.
3. Yudin was supposed to arrive "on the mainland" and signal that the group had begun its mission...

[SURI]

@James2006
To some extent, I agree with you regarding a certain specific objective of the group, the fall into the ravine, and the suspicious role of Yuri Yudin. In my view, Yudin was a part of it. A kind of intermediate link, the second to last point. And Ivanov undoubtedly knew this.

[GlennM]

If you knew Yuden's quality of life toward the end, you may change your thoughts of the man. Yuden actually mourned the Stallinist years believing he had it better then.

[James2006]

@James2006
To some extent, I agree with you regarding a certain specific objective of the group, the fall into the ravine, and the suspicious role of Yuri Yudin. In my view, Yudin was a part of it. A kind of intermediate link, the second to last point. And Ivanov undoubtedly knew this.

That’s an interesting perspective. What led you to conclude that Yudin was an intermediate link? And why are you certain Ivanov knew? I’d like to understand the evidence behind your view.

[SURI]

That's how I perceive it from Ivanov's letters. He knew all the circumstances of the case and said a lot between the lines there. Either you have the intuition to recognize it, or you don't. It is not enough to just read a manipulated case file that lacks a number and is unsigned in many places. Then you get a completely distorted picture.

It is the same with the diaries, which do not reflect the true reality. They were manipulated.

Quite simply, certain forces were at play in the DPI case, influencing everything – both on the Pass and away from it.

[SURI]

And by the way, another interesting read is these letters. Once again, reading between the lines.

https://dyatlovpass.com/zinaida-kolmogorova?flp=1#mainmenua

[James2006]

Interesting. What was the turning point that made you see it that way?

[SURI]

The events at the crime scene were practically clear to me from the very beginning when I started researching DPI. There was nothing to second-guess there — 8 sets of footprints, completely different causes of death, one group scattered, the other together. Ivanov only confirmed it for me and revealed the background. That is all.

Not that the group's diaries aren't interesting, they certainly are, but they must be read with the right perspective.

Many people make the mistake of tracking the entire expedition only through Dyatlov's eyes.

Dyatlov led this expedition on paper only. In reality, someone else was in control of everything, which is why the route was changed at the final stage. As soon as they made camp at the destination, Dyatlov was the first to be neutralized, and that is how the emergency situation began. Everything went according to plan, but not Dyatlov's.

[GlennM]

The someone did not survive their own conspiracy. 

[Hunter]

And by the way, another interesting read is these letters. Once again, reading between the lines.

https://dyatlovpass.com/zinaida-kolmogorova?flp=1#mainmenua

And what did you read there?

[SURI]

The circumstances of the case – that is the most important point. If you want something explained, you must understand at least the basics to build upon. And Ivanov gives you those basics in his letters. But don't expect it to be on a silver platter.

[Hunter]

I read the letters in the original, not the English translation, but the Russian version. As a Russian speaker, I can say there's no hidden agenda in the letters. There's some dissatisfaction with the group's composition, but there's no hidden agenda.

[SURI]

DPI consists of two puzzles
— the scene and the background.

1. The first part of the puzzle is the crime scene. That can be put together very easily.
2. The second part is the circumstances of the case, which are not visible on the surface, and putting them together is almost a task for a dissertation.

[Ziljoe]

@suri

You keep implying there were “perpetrators,” “links in a chain,” a “head pulling strings,” and that Dyatlov was “neutralized first.” 
   
If you’re claiming that some members of the group attacked the others and that this was planned before the expedition, then say it plainly. 
 
Who attacked whom, what was the planned act, and what specific forensic evidence supports it? 
 
No riddles, no metaphors, no intuition, no “reading between the lines,” no references to manipulated diaries. 
 
One clear statement of: 
 1. Who committed the act 
 2. What the act was 
 3. Where it appears in the physical evidence 

   
If you can’t state the claim directly, then it isn’t a theory — it’s just implication.

[SURI]

Everyone has the same opportunity to understand it as I did. Those who do not want to think deeper must stay with the avalanche or the slab theory.

And I see no reason why I shouldn't quote from the diaries; they are essentially evidence. The fact that you cannot see it is not my fault. Understanding is non-transferable.

Ivanov clearly indicated what kind of act it was, who was behind it, etc. If you do not believe him and only insult him, you will have to manage on your own.

[Ziljoe]

Everyone has the same opportunity to understand it as I did. Those who do not want to think deeper must stay with the avalanche or the slab theory.

And I see no reason why I shouldn't quote from the diaries; they are essentially evidence. The fact that you cannot see it is not my fault. Understanding is non-transferable.

Ivanov clearly indicated what kind of act it was, who was behind it, etc. If you do not believe him and only insult him, you will have to manage on your own.

SURI, you’re asserting that Ivanov “clearly indicated” the nature of the act, who was behind it, and that the diaries “convict” specific individuals. 
If that’s true, then you should be able to state the act and the perpetrators directly, and point to the exact forensic evidence that supports it.

So here are the basics you need to establish:

1. What specific act are you claiming took place? 
2. Who, by name, committed this act? 
3. What physical evidence in the case file supports this?

This requires actual citations — not intuition, not “reading between the lines,” not metaphors, and not claims of manipulated diaries.

The forensic record shows:

- no defensive wounds 
- no attacker injuries 
- no soft‑tissue trauma consistent with interpersonal violence 
- no weapon marks 
- no signs of struggle inside the tent 
- no multiple footprint sets indicating a fight 
- ravine injuries consistent with sustained compression under snow 

If you are claiming an internal attack or a planned act, you need to show where any of this appears in the physical evidence.

I understand that trying to explain one's own theory can be daunting and open to critique but that's the best use of the forum.

If you cannot state the act, the perpetrators, and the evidence directly, then you are not presenting a forensic theory — it sounds interesting but you have supplied nothing of note , it's not about fault, it's about communication. And please don't phrase or take moral high ground about others not believing Ivanov because we might not agree with your own interpretation . There's no need for those kind of accusations in the forum.

[SURI]

If you are claiming an internal attack or a planned act, you need to show where any of this appears in the physical evidence.

I am certain that Ivanov saw it best in the photographs. And frankly, I am surprised that you put your faith in unsigned case files.

[Ziljoe]

SURI, saying “Ivanov saw it in the photographs” is not an answer. 
If you are claiming a specific act took place, you need to identify the act, the perpetrators, and the physical evidence.

So again, state clearly:

1. What act you believe occurred 
2. Who committed it 
3. Which photograph or forensic finding supports it

General statements about “understanding” or “unsigned case files” do not establish a crime, a mechanism, or a perpetrator.

It is not a question of faith in case files. On the whole , the incident seems procedural given the era and how documents were gathered.

If you are claiming an internal attack or a planned act, you need to show where any of this appears in the photographic or forensic record.

Ivanov doesn't reference the photograph's.

If you cannot state the act, the perpetrators, and the evidence directly, then you are not presenting a forensic argument — you are presenting an interpretation.

[SURI]

Then take it as an interpretation. It is my opinion, which is why I do not need to present any evidence — even though there is plenty of it, especially documentary evidence.

For example: the incriminating document from February 6th.
Just another of the many illegal "songs" that the hikers wrote down. Do you think Ivanov didn’t know that? That is why he left it in the case file.

"We sit and write songs".

"The boys started copying some songs".

"We heard a number of illegal prison songs (Article 58 counter-revolutionary crimes)".

I know that even now you won't open your eyes

[Ziljoe]

SURI, if you are now presenting this as only your personal interpretation, then it needs to be stated as such. 
But interpretations do not establish a crime, a mechanism, or a perpetrator.

You cited the February 6th diary entry about “songs” as incriminating. 
Illegal songs under Article 58 are political offences, not evidence of homicide, assault, or a planned act within the group. 
They do not identify an act, a perpetrator, or a mechanism. 
They do not appear anywhere in the forensic record as relevant to cause of death.

So again, if you are claiming a specific act took place, you need to state:

1. What the act was 
2. Who committed it 
3. Which forensic or photographic evidence supports it

General references to “documentary evidence,” “illegal songs,” or “Ivanov knew” do not establish any of these points.

No one got arrested for the songs , not those that sung them or taught the hikers , no one cared. It's the same the world over for songs . And what incriminating document from February the 6th?.



The physical record remains unchanged:

- no defensive wounds 
- no attacker injuries 
- no soft‑tissue trauma consistent with interpersonal violence 
- no weapon marks 
- no signs of struggle inside the tent 
- no multiple footprint sets indicating a fight 
- ravine injuries consistent with sustained compression under snow 

If you cannot identify the act, the perpetrators, and the supporting evidence, then you are not presenting a forensic theory — you are presenting a personal interpretation. 
And interpretations are not evidence.

[SURI]

The important thing is that Ivanov knew it. It is clear that you still haven’t understood him. He spoke about the killing, the motive, and the savagery of the group. What more do you want? Even if 100 pieces of evidence were presented to you, you wouldn't accept a single one