Discrepancies in the Resolution to close the case

[Teddy]

Author Galina Sazonova

Resolution to close the case – one of the most cited documents of the Criminal Case.

This is the document that explains the cause of the death of the group with an "overwhelming force, which the hikers were unable to overcome".

This is the document that allows all opponents of the criminal versions to use the phrase “no traces of outsiders” as an argument.

I suspect that it was this document that formed the basis of the “controlled environment” theory by Alexey Rakitin, in which he makes Georgiy Krivonischenko as one of the “main characters”, suggesting that one of his clothes was specifically contaminated with radiation (the famous “Krivonishchenko pants”) .

It is this document that discredits earlier (often less well known to not so advanced researchers) documents and statements.

And in this regard, this document deserves a very careful attention to itself, attempts to analyze almost every phrase, comparison with other sources. Moreover, there are 3 variants of this document and they all differ from each other.

Starting to work with this document and its variants, first of all I wondered:

• what information are investigator Ivanov's conclusions based on?
• if there are discrepancies - does it discredit the other documents, or does it show Ivanov's negligence?
• how many “mistakes, omits or mismatches” with other documents are we talking about?
• if there is an attempt to hide something or divert the attention to something, to divert attention - is it possible to try to account for these moments?

Because it is this document that puts an end to the investigation into the cause of the death of the group, and it was this document that was given to the relatives, not the rest of the documents of the criminal case.

Here I will try only to identify the moments in this document that are unclear to me, to show the discrepancy with other sources and address the questions that arise personally for me. Agree or disagree with these questions, to try to find answers can every reader on their own.

So….

Note:

• I decided to merge all 3 versions of the Resolution in one text, so that the logic of the document change could be seen better. Such fragments will be highlighted in red. If this phrase is absent in the final version, it will be crossed out. In brackets I will indicated in which of the draft versions it was present initially.
• With an asterisk (*) I will highlight the exact phrase or semantic fragment to which my comment will apply.

I.

Resolution.

May 28, 1959

city of Sverdlovsk

Prosecutor criminologist of the Sverdlovsk Regional Prosecutor's Office Jr. Justice Counselor Ivanov, having examined the criminal case instituted on the occasion of the death of 9 hikers in the Ivdel district of the Sverdlovsk region,

rulled:

• On what basis is the case closed by the prosecutor of the Sverdlovsk regional prosecutor's office, if it was initiated by the prosecutor of the town of Ivdel Tempalov? There is no ruling on transfer of a criminal case from one prosecutor's office to another
• If there was a transfer, why is Ivanov conducting observational proceedings in a case that he is leading?

II.

January 23, 1959 a group of amateur hikers in the amount of 10 people went on a ski trip along the route: city of Sverdlovsk - city of Ivdel - 2nd Northern district - Mt. Otorten - Oyko-Chakur mountain - North Toschemka river - Vizhay settlement - city of Ivdel - city of Sverdlovsk.

The group consisted of: Igor Dyatlov - a student of the Ural Polytechnic Institute, leader of the expedition; Dubinina L.A., Kolmogorova Z.A., Kolevatov A.S., Yudin Y.E., Doroshenko Y.N. - UPI students; Zolotaryov A.A.* - Instructor of the Kourovka Tour Base, Slobodin R.V., Krivonischenko Y.G., Thibeaux-Brignolle N.V. - engineers of enterprises in Sverdlovsk and Chelyabinsk.

Zolotaryov initials are wrong. In all 3 versions of the resolution.

This is also the case in another document - the protocol of forensic medical examination. Both documents are procedural. There is a question about the identification of Zolotaryov.

However, in non-procedural documents (like the receipt of Semyon’s mother receiving his belongings), the name of Zolotaryov is stated quite correctly. So Ivanov knew what his name really was.

It can be added here that Zolotaryov's initials are wrong in the well-known protocols of the city committee and the regional committee of the CPSU, on the plate on the monument.

III.

All the participants of the expedition had good hiking training and could participate in a trek of III category of difficulty*. The group was supplied with the necessary equipment and food, the trade union committee of the Ural Polytechnic Institute financed the expedition.

There is no data on the hiking training of the participants, even in such documents as the project of the expedition and the report of the Moscow experts. Especially the question of preparation was supposed to concern all the same Semyon Zolotaryov. Semyon Zolotaryov was approved twice - first in Sogrin group, and then in Dyatlov group. However, it later turned out that none of the commission members (including Maslennikov) had ever seen him personally. There are no documents stating Zolotaryov's qualification either.

IV.

Arriving safely to the place of the beginning of the trek - the 2nd Northern Ivdels district on 28.I.59 the group started the hike. One hiker - Yudin Y.S. returned home from the site of the 2nd Northern, as he could not continue the trek due to illness.

From diary entries, sketches of the route and developed photographic films of the hikers it is determined that on 28 May 1959 the group went upstream Lozva river, 30.I.59 the group continued its movement, 31.I.59 the hikers reached Auspiya river and tried to go over the pass to the valley of Lozva river, but because of the low temperature and strong wind they had to go back down and stopped for overnight. On I.II.59 as planned in the project (draft 1). hikers built a storage in the upper reaches of Auspiya river in which they left supplies of food and all unnecessary equipment* And at 15-00 started climbing to the pass (draft 1)

1. In the plan for the expedition (and this phrase disappears from the final version of the decree) there is not a single word about the cache site. It is impossible to argue that making a storage was “planned.”
2. the storage is mentioned several times in the group diaries. But at the same time ...

From Zina diary for 30.01 «Today, maybe, we will build a storage.»

From group diary for 31.01 «I can't even start thinking of setting up a storage»

The diaries are not giving us a definite information about where and whether they built a storage.

It can be assumed that the investigation saw the storage marked on the sketches the group made and probably found among the items in the tent - this explains how easily and quickly it was found on March 2. But at the same time, on February 25, in the canister dropped by Slobtsov group, a clear instruction was given to “search for a storage site”. So how did the search party knew about the storage if the tent itself was found on February 26th?

V.

On 31.I.59 going back in the valley of Auspiya river and knowing about the difficult conditions of the relief of the height "1079", where the ascent was supposed to be, Dyatlov, as the leader of the group, made a gross mistake* allowing the group to begin the ascent on 1.II.59, only at 15-00. (not present in draft 1, present in draft 2)

The start of the ascent - see "photo examination"

VI.

Later, on the ski trail, which was preserved at the time of the search, it was possible to establish that the hikers, moving to the valley of the fourth tributary of the Lozva River, were 500-600 m to the left and instead of the pass formed by the peaks "1079" and "880" they went up on the eastern slope of height "1079".

This was Dyatlov's second mistake.*

There is no data confirming that the ski trail belongs to the group. Moreover, according to the recollections of Slobtsov (the person who found this ski trail), they could not even determine the direction of movement along it (up or down), since there were no traces of poles.

Even assuming that this ski trail belonged to Dyatlov group

• the trail was left 31 Jan 1959 before making the first attempt to go over the pass. It doesn't reflect the movement of the group on 1 Feb 1959 and shows just the right direction to the pass.
• this ski trail ended before the pass and the slope; Slobtsov group went further in azimuth, and not on the ski trail itself.
• no ski tracks were detected on the ridge. And accordingly, talking about group movements can only be theoretically. Thus, there is no data for an orientation error; this can only be an assumption.

VII.

Using light day time to rise to the top of the "1079", in conditions of strong wind that is usual in this area, and a low temperature of the order of 25-30°C*, Dyatlov group found themselves at unprofitable conditions for spending the night and decided to pitch the tent on a slope of height "1079" so that in the morning of the next day, without losing altitude, go to the Mt. Otorten, to which the distance in straight line remained about 10 km.

Even during searches, requests were made for weather conditions on the night of February 1st to 2nd.

Answers to queries about the weather (reflected Maslennikov notebook)

1. (Burmantovo meteorological station)

   15 (hour)	overcast	north	5-8
   18	clouds	north	1-10
   19	clouds	north	3-11
   21	clouds	north	1-13
   23	clouds	west	1-5
   0	clouds	north-west	3-15
   3	clear	west	3-21

2. Weather February 1 in Ivdela was a temperature of 17 northwest wind 14 m second

3. Weather near the airfield on February 1, temperature 8-9°C, wind 10-14 m/s gusty

4. According to an extract from the journal of meteorological observations in Burmantovo (should have been provided to the investigation), the temperature on February 1 was -4 -10°C.

Thus, Ivanov’s statement about a very low temperature down to -30°C degrees is not justified by anything, but only explains well "why everyone froze".

VIII.

In one of the cameras the last frame shows the moment of excavation of snow for the installation of the tent. Considering that this frame was shot with an exposure of I/25 seconds, with a diaphragm of 5.6 at a film sensitivity of 65 Un. GOST, and taking into account the density of the frame, we can assume that the hikers started the installation of the tent around 5 pm* 1.II.59. A similar picture was taken with another camera.

After this time, no records and no photos were found.

Note: it is precisely this 5 pm that the countdown of when they left the site of the last stop is based: “Dyatlov, as the head of the group, made a gross mistake*, expressed in the fact that the group began the ascent of I.II.59 only in 15-00"

Apparently Ivanov is referring to these photos:

1. These photos belong to the category of "loose photos", the source is not known. They are NOT part of the criminal case (and they must be, if they were examined), the frames are NOT from any of Dyatlov group members films.

   In the materials of the criminal case, there is NO document of the examination for establishing the time when the pictures were taken, as well as there are no documents reflecting the state of the cameras.

   Thus, this statement of Ivanov is not at all confirmed by any of the materials of the criminal case.

2. According to his characteristics, “shutter speed, aperture, ISO) in the script it is impossible to draw a conclusion about the shooting time, since the illumination is affected not only by the time of day, but also by cloudiness, poor visibility due to snow and so on.

IX.

According to the protocol of the route committee, the group leader, Igor Dyatlov, 12.II.59, was to telegraphically inform the sports club of the UPI and the Committee of Physical Education (comrade Ufimtsev) on arrival of the group in the village of Vizhay.

Since the deadline of 12.II.59 passed, and no information was received from the group, the hikers who knew Dyatlov closely demanded a search to start, and on 20.II.59 the Institute's leadership on the Dyatlov route sent a search team, and then several more groups. Subsequently, soldiers and officers of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, planes and helicopters of civil and military aviation joined the search operation.

On February 26, 1959, on the eastern slope of the peak "1079" the group's tent was found with all the equipment and food in it. The tent and all that was in it were well preserved.

Inspection of the tent showed that it was set correctly and provided accommodation for the hikers. In the tent there were 2 blankets, backpacks, storm jackets and trousers. The rest of the blankets were crumpled and frozen. On the blanket were found several loin pieces.*

Assessment of the state of the tent causes a huge amount of controversy, because prior to inspection by the authorities, it was partially examined by the search party. Some of the items were taken from there by them and, possibly, returned the next day. It is also not known exactly when the investigators found out (or did they) about the fact that rescuers handles items form inside the tent.

X.

Location and availability of items in the tent (almost all shoes, all outer clothing, personal belongings and diaries) indicated that the tent was abandoned suddenly by all hikers at the same time, and, as it was established in the subsequent forensic expertise*, the lee side of the tent, where hikers usually laid their heads*, it was cut from the inside in two places providing a free exit of the person through these cuts.

1. Ivanov gives 2 characteristics of the tent sides – A) "lee side" B) "where hikers laid their heads".

   In accordance with these characteristics, we are talking about the western slant, facing the rise, not descent. And from this it follows that the group through the sections “ensuring the free exit of a person” should have come up, not down the descent.

   According to the scheme of the tent attached to the act of forensic examination - the cuts are depicted on the opposite slant - the eastern, not the one about which Ivanov writes.

2. Ivanov claims: as established in the subsequent forensic examination*, … turned out to be cut from inside in two places Ivanov assigns expertise of the tent on 16 Mar 1959.

   The tent comes to the lab 01 Apr 1959.

   Examination begins 03 Apr 1959 and finished 16 Apr 1959.

   However, on March 27, Moscow masters of sports (Bardin, Shuleshko) send their reports to the Central Committee of the CPSU and it already says that "experts have established that the tent is torn from the inside".

   What expertise do the masters refer to if the tent is not even delivered to the laboratory by this point?

   Does this mean that there were several examinations, or does this mean that the decision to "torn from the inside" was made initially, this was reported to the Central Committee, and the examination of April 16 only confirms this?

Report of the masters of sports in the Central Committee of the CPSU

XI.

Below the tent, for up to 500 meters* in the snow, traces of people walking from the tent to the valley and into the forest have been preserved. The traces were well preserved and there were 8-9 pairs.

The statement about the length of the area of traces of 500m is not only not confirmed, but contradicts with other case files documents.

• radiograms refer to a length of 1 km
• Chernyshov testimony: the footprints continue below the stone ridge (more than 500m)
• Atmanaki testimony: 700-800m
• even Ivanov himself writes below, “Closer to the border of the forest, the footprints were covered with snow and disappeared.”, which corresponds to 1 km according to the schemes in the Case files.

XII.

Inspection of the tracks showed that some of them were almost barefoot (for example, in one cotton sock), others had a typical footprint of felt boots, legs covered in a soft sock, etc. Prints of tracks were located close to each other, converging and again separated one from another. Closer to the border of the forest, the footprints were covered with snow and disappeared.

Neither traces of a struggle nor presence of other people were found in the tent or near it.*

1. Ivanov completely avoids mentioning the trace in the shoe. The footprint in the shoe contradicts the statement that there are no traces of strangers, since no member of the shoe group was wearing. However, the trace of the boot is clearly mentioned in the protocol of Chernyshov testimony.

   “we counted on the tent down to the valley 6 or 7 pairs of tracks, and 20 m to the left of them went 2 more pair of tracks. Then in 30-40 m these two groups (2 and 7 tracks) came together and do not part. The tracks were very well distinguished. In some footprints could be seen that the person was walking barefoot or in cotton sock, because the toes were imprinted. Further down was visible one track in a boot. Very well etched heel and the heel portion, and the intermediate part is not printed.”

   And sketched in Maslennikov notebook.

   

2. Ivanov doesn't say that not only tracks of outsiders were not found, but also the traces of Dyatlov group themselves were not found:

   • the ski trail on the slope was not preserved
   • there are traces around the tent
   • there are traces around the cedar tree

   Thus, it is more correct to say that in many areas, due to weather conditions, traces were not preserved in general. Including the group itself.

   Maslennikov in his diary, despite the "absence of traces," allows for the presence of strangers.

   

XIII.

26.II.59 in 1500 meters from the tent, at the forest boundary, the remains of a fire are found, and near it were the bodies of Doroshenko and Krivonischenko, stripped to the underwear. At 300 meters from the makeshift fire, in the direction of the tent, was found the body of Dyatlov, 180 meters away from him - the body of Slobodin, and 150 meters from Slobodin - Kolmogorova body.

According to Ivanov’s calculations, Zina’s body was found 870 meters from the tent, which is contrary to the protocol for inspecting the scene: In the same area, strictly in the south-west direction on the slope of height “1079” at a distance of 500 (changed from "58" or "56" - ed. note) meters from the body (later identified as Igor Alekseevich Dyatlov) was discovered a body of a female. Identified as Zinaida Alekseevna Kolmogorova.

Why is this important?

XIV.

The last three bodies were located on a straight line from the fire to the tent. Dyatlov lay on his backs, his head in the direction of the tent, his hands clasping the trunk of a small birch. Slobodin and Kolmogorova lay face down, their pose testified that they were crawling to the tent.*

Besides the poses, it would be more revealing if they were trying to go back to the tent if there were any traces left, but non were noticed.

Going back to XI and XIII

XI – Ivanov "reduces" the length of the traces from 800-1000m to 500.

XIII – Ivanov "pushes" Zina away from the tent, from 500m to 850.

Thus, Zina is no longer in the area of the footprints, which would follow from the Case files materials: Zina was found 500 meters from the tent, while the tracks were preserved for 800–1000m.

According to Ivanov the tracks end at a distance of 500 m, Zina lies at a distance of 850m, where there are no footprints.

The problem is that there were no traces of return (!) among the tracks, which should have been, if Zina was going back to the tent from the cedar. This is why Ivanov changes the distance.

If he had followed the information from the Case files, it would have turned out that Zina had died only 500 meters down, and the group had left her body there. In this case, the descent from the tent at 500 m is clearly not enough time to freeze.

XV.

May 4, 1959, 75 meters from the campfire, in the direction of the valley of the fourth tributary of Lozva, i.e. perpendicular to the way of the hikers from the tent, under a layer of snow 4-4.5 meters, the bodies of Dubinina, Zolotaryov, Thibeaux-Brignolle and Kolevatov were found. On the bodies, as well as a few meters from them, Krivonischenko and Doroshenko's clothes were found - trousers, sweaters. All clothing has traces of smooth cuts, as already photographed with the bodies of Doroshenko and Krivonischenko.

The dead Thibeaux Brignolle and Zolotaryov were found well-dressed, worse dressed Dubinina - her jacket made of artificial fur and a cap were found on Zolotaryov*, Dubinina's naked leg was wrapped in Krivonischenko's woolen pants.*

Was Semyon wearing Luda's clothes?

According to the autopsy report, Zolotaryov is wearing a “brown sport button-down jacket with a button”. And a "tarpaulin green fur jacket on sheepskin" is found on Tibo, which, according to the description, resembles Luda's jacket, which was not found in March.

As for the cap, which also "turned out to be on Zolotaryov", in volume 2 there is a note written by Ivanov himself, that "the green cap is on Tibo".

As for "Dubinina’s bare leg wrapped in Krivonishchenko’s woolen trousers"

According to the autopsy report: Left leg - part of lower leg and foot wrapped in a gray woolen burnt flap from a jacket with a sleeve

Protocol of inspection of the scene where the bodies were found: «half of the sweater is wrapped around the right leg - a beige color sweater»

Resolution for radiological testing: brown sweater from № 4 (№4 – Lyudmila Dubinina, according to the autopsy protocol number, coincidence in the number of decays - 9900)

Thus, the statement about the “woolen trousers” is not confirmed by any document and even contradicts the resolution on conducting the Resolution for radiological testing, written by Ivanov himself.

XVI.

Near the bodies, Krivonischenko's knife was found, which cut off the young firs near the fire.

Finding a knife is not documented anywhere and is not reflected in any of the memories of search participants. The same Krivonischenko knife was not presented to relatives and was not returned to them. Unlike all other knives of the group.

XVII.

A forensic autopsy revealed that Kolevatov’s death was caused by a low temperature (hypothermia); Kolevatov had no injuries.*

Kolevatov has only bruises. (draft 1)

According to the autopsy report Kolevatov has "a wound of undetermined shape behind the right ear in the area of the mastoid process". Moreover, the conclusion of the Vozrozhdenny about death from hypothermia is not justified, since none of the signs characteristic of hypothermia is indicated in the descriptive part of the protocol. The cause of Kolevatov's death can be considered not determined.

Physical and technical examination has established that Zolotaryov’s clothes, and especially Dubinina’s clothes, are significantly contaminated with radioactive dust.

So the tatters from Krivonishchenko’s trousers that wrapped Dubinina’s leg (examination table №60)* gives 9900 half-lives per minute from 150 sq. cm, the belt from Zolotaryov’s sweater (examination table №2) gives 5600 half-decays, which significantly exceeds the rate of pollution permitted by sanitary regulations. Neither Zolotaryov, nor Dubinina worked with radioactive substances.

If we take into account that the bodies of Zolotaryov and Dubinina were in the water for a long time before the discovery, then it should be considered that their radioactive contamination was significant.*

This fragment is only in draft form and is completely absent in the Resolution of volume 1.

Let's try to figure it out.

Who do the samples belong to? In the «Radiological Analysis Report» it is said.

In the Certificate of Examination all objects of investigation are numbered from №1 to №4.
i.e:

№1 Kolevatov
№2 Zolotaryov
№3 Thibeaux-Brignolle
№4 Dubinina

As in the autopsy reports.

In each of the autopsy protocols there is evidence of the clothes that were on the bodies.

If you compare these data, then Ivanov is wrong:

1. He attributes Kolevatov's sweater belt to Zolotaryov.
2. He confuses what is Lyuda leg wrapped in, claiming that these are Krivonischenko pants.
3. He attributes contamination clothes to Zolotaryov, although Zolotaryov is "clean"
4. He doesn't say anything about Kolevatov’s contamination, although 2 elements of his clothes tested radioactive, including the overalls that were removed from Doroshenko.
5. He incorrectly attributes some kind of jacket to Lyuda, although Lyuda is not found in a jacket. Lyuda's jacket is on Tibo.

You can also pay attention to the phrase from the very Resolution for radiation testing:

"At the disposal of the expert to present all the clothes of Zolotaryov, Dubinina, Kolevatov and Thibeaux-Brignolle, as well as part of their bodies." We are aware of the expertise of only 10 samples.

XVIII.

It is also established that the population of the Mansi people, living in 80-100 km in a few days distance (draft 1) from this place, is Russian friendly, offers hikers accommodation, assistance etc. The place where the group died is considered to be unfit for hunting and reindeer breeding in the winter.

Considering the absence of external injuries to the bodies* or signs of a fight*, the presence of all the valuables of the group, and also taking into account the conclusion of the medical examinations for the causes of the deaths of the hikers, it is concluded that the cause of their demise was overwhelming force, which the hikers were not able to overcome.

Multiple external lesions were found on each body, such as abrasions, wounds, hematomas, burns, etc., as recorded in the autopsy protocols.

The icing on the cake.

In the decision to terminate a criminal case on the fact of death there is not a single word about when did they die.

[sarapuk]

DISCREPANCIES.  Yes they crop up a fair bit in this mystery.  My take on this particular article is as follows.
[1] Basis for closure of the Case. I dont think the Authorities needed much basis and they didnt need to give a very detailed explanation. I think what Ivanov gave was probably just enough. 
[2] Wrong initials. This could be put down to a simple error. It happens a fair bit even in Courts of law today.
[3] Good hiking training. No Data was given ie no certificates or other such paperwork was mentioned. I dont think that the Authorities needed to do that. It was enough that it was mentioned that all the Dyatlov Group were very capable of undertaking such an expedition.
[4] Plan for the expedition. Where is it ? There is no mention of the Cache Site. So where is the Plan that says there was no Cache Site.
[5] Canister dropped by the Slobtsov Search Group. Did Search Party know beforehand about a Storage Site. It may have been intuition on the go so to speak, ie as the Searches continued whoever was in overall control may have been giving out DIRECTIVES based on how the Searches were going and obviously the gradual finding of the remnants of the Dyatlov Group expedition.
[6] The start of the ascent. It is often claimed that Dyatlov made a mistake by taking the route he did in the final stages. And the Resolution backs that up. But there is no proof.
[7] Ski Trail. No Data confirming that the Ski Trail belonged to the Dyatlov Group. How could anyone tell for sure who made any Ski Trails. I would have thought Ski Trails would be more difficult to investigate than FOOTPRINTS, because Ski Hikers can easily follow in each others tracks, making it very difficult to know how many Ski's involved.
[8] Weather. So many variables that it must be difficult to come to any consensus on exact conditions.
[9] Photos. Once again open to various interpretation. And the mention once again of Dyatlov making a mistake, but there is no proof he made a mistake. Dyatlov may have been doing exactly what was needed due to the situation they found themselves in.
[10] Tent Site. Mismanagement comes to mind or rather Searchers not knowing that they were dealing with a potential very serious crime or incident scene. Ivanov's involvement at the Tent site doesnt suggest any mismanagement by him personally. He his having to deal with a developing situation, presumably not aware of what is to come.
[11] Footprints confusion. I think the confusion comes from people not realising or forgetting that this is a Search going on in fairly hostile conditions and searchers including Ivanov are having to make quick assessments as they proceed. And quick measurements. What measuring equipment did they have. Etc.
[12] The bodies of  Dyatlov,  Slobodin, and  Kolmogorova. ''Their pose testified that they were crawling  to the tent.'' Although this is like so many things, SPECULATION. It appeared that they were crawling to the Tent. There may be a DISCREPENCY in Ivanov's statement regarding FOOTPRINTS and DISTANCE of bodies. But it could be a question of Ivanov simply falling back on NOTES taken at the time of the SEARCHES.
[13] The bodies of Dubinina, Zolotaryov, Thibeaux-Brignolle and Kolevatov. There do appear to be DISCREPANCIES here. And it will probably take some figuring out. In the Forum I think it has been mentioned of the possibility of clothes accidentally being picked up and put on the wrong bodies somewhere between being found and the Autopsies. And of course mistakes at the scene. NOTES taken at the scene or scenes , where are they.
[14] Knife. Knife NOT documented anywhere. But it says ''Near the bodies, Krivonischenko's knife was found, which cut off the young firs near the fire.'' DISCREPANCY here.
[15] The body of Kolevatov. A forensic autopsy revealed that Kolevatov’s death was caused by a low temperature (hypothermia); Kolevatov had no injuries. But according to the Autopsy he did have a WOUND. And also that death by Low Temperature was not considered justified. DISCREPANCY here.
[16] Radiation reports. It appears that Ivanov may be wrong on some analyses but also it could be due to other reasons. DISCREPANCY here.
[17] External injuries and signs of a fight. ''Considering the absence of external injuries to the bodies or signs of a fight.'' Obviously there were external injuries and some injuries could have been the result of a fight or self defence. DISCREPANCY here.
[18] In the decision to terminate a criminal case on the fact of death there is not a single word about WHEN did they die. I dont know if thats a pertinent point or not. After all there was and still is no proof about the exact time they all died.

[Aspen]

So many discrepancies.  A thought:  Ivanov was ordered to close the investigation, and was unhappy about that.  Is it possible that he left the file incomplete and inconsistent, in the hope that this would spur the authorities to reopen the case at some future time?

Another question, about the boot track.  Is it possible that those 'valenkis' are sometimes fitted with a sole?  (Here in Canada we do that with mocassins sometimes.)

Altogether, only one boot track was seen?  So, strange...

[Clacon]

That's possible - although even this latest investigation into the case is not a criminal one, is it??

Does anyone know exactly what they are looking at? Are they going to be looking for traces of radiation? Anything else in particular?

When will the results be made public?

[sarapuk]

So many discrepancies.  A thought:  Ivanov was ordered to close the investigation, and was unhappy about that.  Is it possible that he left the file incomplete and inconsistent, in the hope that this would spur the authorities to reopen the case at some future time?

Another question, about the boot track.  Is it possible that those 'valenkis' are sometimes fitted with a sole?  (Here in Canada we do that with mocassins sometimes.)

Altogether, only one boot track was seen?  So, strange...

Actually , not really that many discrepancies. Depends what your definition of a discrepancy is  !  ?  Well as far as FOOTPRINTS go, we know that the Dyatlov group left the Tent in a hurry. And obviously they didnt have the time to get dressed properly.

[sarapuk]

That's possible - although even this latest investigation into the case is not a criminal one, is it??

Does anyone know exactly what they are looking at? Are they going to be looking for traces of radiation? Anything else in particular?

When will the results be made public?

Check out the info on ''The Dyatlov Pass'' on  www.dyatlovpass.com  site. Apparently the findings of this latest investigation will be made public ASAP after that investigation.

[Teddy]

New investigation is only looking for avalanche, snowslab and hurricane. I don't expect much from the expedition itself but it will stir a lot of old-new information. The prosecutor’s office considers three versions to be priority: “All of them are connected to natural phenomena, crime is completely excluded: those are an avalanche, the so called snowslab and a hurricane. Winds of sufficient strength are common for this area,” said Kurennoy.

[WAB]

So many discrepancies.  A thought:  Ivanov was ordered to close the investigation, and was unhappy about that.  Is it possible that he left the file incomplete and inconsistent, in the hope that this would spur the authorities to reopen the case at some future time?

It does not consist so. Ivanov has spent business strictly under the law. 2 months have been calculated on preliminary investigation. After that it could prolong business for one month with the consent of the regional public prosecutor. The further prolongation was possible only in the presence of obvious signs of a criminal offence and only with the consent of the Main public prosecutor of RSFSR.
Let's look, what from this it is not carried out or contradicts the law?
1.Case have opened on February, 26th 1959
2. Case Prolongation has been solved on April, 28th 1959, with the permission of regional public prosecutor Klinov.
3.The inspector has not found out Signs of a criminal offence. Even now their any "writers" can think up only is artificial, because of own imaginations, instead of on the available real facts.
4. Case has been buried on May, 28th 1959. All has been made under the law and as (we look point #3) it was not revealed did not begin to address to the Main public prosecutor of RSFSR. Because there is no such reason. By the way, the assistant to the Main public prosecutor of RSFSR supervised this business in order of legal supervision and has not stated any remarks as matter of fact. Probably there were what that errors in registration of papers, but it did not influence the final decision.
Public prosecutor Ivanov could not explain the exact reason of an event, therefore he has written the ingenious formulation of a result: «uncertain force majeure which they could not overcome» (c). It is the formulation approaches under all cases which can be real, but does not give the concrete answer. Because he did not know it then. Nobody knows it and now. Has passed 60 years, the science has promoted far forward, and the exact answer and is not present.
Therefore so it is a lot of ideas, imaginations and conspirologing  fabrications.
I think that even if now there will be an exact answer it заболтают and will not believe.

Another question, about the boot track.  Is it possible that those 'valenkis' are sometimes fitted with a sole?  (Here in Canada we do that with mocassins sometimes.)

Altogether, only one boot track was seen?  So, strange...

Here there is nothing strange. Because it was one and looks absolutely fresh it is necessary assume that it was the trace of participants of searches.
1.It is not damaged absolutely not by wind. Such can be only if this trace have left no more than days or two back if there was no wind or it was in wind shade, and the wind was very weak. On the given slope the wind blows always, and having rummaged in strong wind makes maximum 3 … 4 days.
2.This trace is found out any more before February, 28th, and on slope and on February, 26th and 27 participants of searches went. Nobody knew who and where went, therefore it could print anywhere.
3.On " 'valenkis' dress "sole", but it is galosh and has no such heel. In photo the trace of heel in the form of triangle in forward part is well visible. It is  trace of ski boot which then were at searchers. Here photo of such boots which were applied then



Pay attention to characteristic triangular ledge on  heel of these boots. For then attentively look at  photo of  trace of  boot and you will see the same ledge on  trace.
1.The snow Most part on clone in this place is an ice crust of different degree of hardness. Therefore in other places of traces could not see or have not paid to them attention because it is  trace there was on place of traces of Dyatlov group, and others were in other places.
2.During one of our conversations Michael Sharavin has told that, most likely, it they have left this trace when went to tent on February, 26th or 27. They had such boots and they went there without "bakhily" on February, 26th when with Boris Slobtsov have left skis with "bakhily" more low on a slope and have risen to tent.

[cz]

@VIII.: The "last" photos

Then the conclusion is that these photos are not related to the case and do not show the Dyatlov group (at least not during the trip)?

Whom do we see there then?

[tekumze]

 I really do not know why they even opened the case if the new search only looks for avalanche and wind. If that's true then nothing is expected. Totally disappointing. Anyone who has ever stood in a place where a tent has been set up knows that there has never been a avalanche and there will be no avalanche in next 1000 years.

[Aspen]

Thank you WAB for the clarification about the boot track.  I agree that it looks too fresh and clear cut on the photo, so it probably was from a rescuer on Feb 26 or 27, 1959.

As for the abrupt termination of the investigation, I had in mind the following comments from the interview with Evgeniy Okishev who supervised the investigation : https://dyatlovpass.com/evgeniy-okishev-2013?rbid=18461

"Deputy Prosecutor General, comrade Urakov came to meet with us and gave orders that we were to all tell anyone who asked that the tourists’ death was an accident. Urakov evaded all our direct questions about tests of armaments. I mean, he did not deny this version, but simply avoided direct answers. What’s more, Urakov took absolutely no interest in the course of our investigation, as if the picture of the scene was absolutely clear to him already. He, however, took the case away with him. With that, our investigation came to an end. Just imagine: at the very height of the investigation, when dead bodies with strange injuries have just been found, the case is being taken away! "

However, WAB's comments above put the matter into another perspective.  It is difficult to follow all these matters.

[tekumze]

Can anyone tell me what can we expect from the official investigation in the newly opened case? And when should we get the first official results? Because If this time the case from 1959 (Dyatlov pass) does not bring a conclusion then this case will definitely remain unresolved for ever... and everything else will  be just a innuendo in to  infinity...

[Teddy]

Can anyone tell me what can we expect from the official investigation in the newly opened case? And when should we get the first official results? Because If this time the case from 1959 (Dyatlov pass) does not bring a conclusion then this case will definitely remain unresolved for ever... and everything else will  be just a innuendo in to  infinity...

Do you really, honestly, expect somebody in this forum to give you an answer to that?

[tekumze]

I hope so...

[Teddy]

I hope so...

"Abandon all hope, ye who enter here"

That should be the motto on the Dyatlov case 

[Clacon]

HAHAHA! Frik, yes it should be! :(

Or "prepare to be driven insane, all who enter here".

Unfortunately, Teddy is right. This has way too much red tape around it to be "solved" by a new "team of experts".

What boggles my mind is why they didn't at least test for radiation!! I mean, there are so many grounds upon which to at least test that.

But then I suppose, that would open up a can of worms they just aren't prepared to deal with, right?

Its most likely going to be a snowslab. 80 percent sure.

[tekumze]

Yes of course, I agree, let abandon every hope for revelation. No doubt: not 80% but 100% will be found that guilty for everything was a avalanche and slowly we can all together go home... 

[Teddy]

Hope is not enough. You can't throw epic questions into the universe and expect an answers. Think... read... offer your own explanation. Each of us is doing the due. You can't ask in a forum when and get an answer - Monday morning. Unless you are talking rhetorically and not expecting an answer.

[tekumze]

Ok, if you say so. I like your retoric. We need a semantic approach and do not have any other than abstract mathematics. I will use Reimann zeta
function. And until we can't prove oposite then that all trivial zeros lie down on vertical axes. Until then everything in microcosmos is accidentally and everything in macrocosmos is definitely and T(time)+S(space)+C(consciousness)=0
Dyatlov pass answer is: Few lightning balls with a diameter of max. 50 - 100 cm, injury bigger and smaller, panic of not understanding natural force, fear of unknow, wrong conclusion due very cold weather, time running out, less and less stamina, subcooling... and this is the end = 0

[sarapuk]

I really do not know why they even opened the case if the new search only looks for avalanche and wind. If that's true then nothing is expected. Totally disappointing. Anyone who has ever stood in a place where a tent has been set up knows that there has never been a avalanche and there will be no avalanche in next 1000 years.

Well hopefully we wont get too many DISCREPANCIES after this latest Investigation publishes its results. I suppose we mustnt jump the gun and we must wait to see what crops up from the Investigation. Maybe a surprise or two.

[tekumze]

First of all. First thing that is interesting is the fact that the case is open at the official level again after 60 years. Why?  Because it is an anniversary? Or just because they are going to show two or three things that will not explain anything? And the ¨avalanche¨ will re-start for the next 60 years. Just because someone has an interest in this. And so this will be so long as profit is the only driver of society.
 I'm still saying, you do not need to believe things just because you want to believe them.
P.s.: All my questions are retorical with a little irony. No hard feelings.

[Teddy]

If we take a step back... way further back, at the end of the day... no matter what theory do you believe in (you in rhetorical sense) we all agree that 1) these were not wackos but experienced hikers, 2) the fact that Zolotaryov joined the last moment only reinforces for me the fact that he would have broken a pact to do something very risky or stupid, which we don't have any indication to be the case, and 3) they did die under very strange circumstances, 4) their injuries can not be attributed to anything natural.

Step 1 - go to the slopes of Kholat Syakhl to get the "feeling" and measurements. But that's all. There is nothing left there.
Step 2 - you need to dig into formalities and find something that speaks volumes of criminal intend.
To me these are the documents and remains of the bodies, the cemeteries. Digging up Zolotaryov is not enough. Tumanov, the pathologist that is on the expedition with the prosecutors says all of the bodies need to be exhumed.

I don't think we know what is going on, but the investigation was not reopened because of the anniversary. This I can guarantee you. Something will surface after all this energy and attention, or maybe all this energy and attention IS because something is cooking.

I retract my remark about trowing epic questions at the universe, actually we should never stop doing this, we need to do it daily.  This is what moves the case, the attention of the masses. No matter how close or far we are from the truth. We need to be inquisitive.

[tekumze]

I like your way of thinking. And I respect your emotional enthusiasm.
Do we know why the Zolotaryov even joined the group at all. He was in no way a part of this group  from the beginning.

P.a.: Only a small note to point 4: any modern professor, geneticist, anthropologist or physician  can confirm that their injuries may be in line with today's understanding of "natural injuries"

[Teddy]

P.a.: Only a small note to point 4: any modern professor, geneticist, anthropologist or physician  can confirm that their injuries may be in line with today's understanding of "natural injuries"

Tumanov didn't confirm and he is quite modern.
I am going back to my previous appeal, don't just say things. Find me a respectable pathologist (no professor, geneticist, anthropologist or physician) that will confirm that from s/he sees in the autopsy reports of Dubinina, Zolotaryov and Thibeaux-Brignolle the traumas can be caused by natural causes of the terrain in which they were found. Don't forget that they were found where they sustained the injuries. They died not more than 10-20 mins after the trauma. The histological analyses prove it, there was no cellular reaction towards healing.

[tekumze]

I was misinterpreted. My claim was that spherical lightning in any form could cause such damage. And with this I thought "a natural cause". Formation fixation leads to the decomposition of mRNA, miRNA and DNA, and denaturation and modification of proteins in tissues. However, it is possible to extract and analyze nucleic acids and proteins from formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissues. This technique was first used in 1986. When Mr. Tumanov performed histological analyzes that prove this? They conducted a chemical and histological examination of a particular body and parts of the internal organs we took. And do we have the results of a chemical and histological examination of their specific body and parts of the internal organs that they took, at all?

 I'm still interested: Do we know why the Zolotaryov even joined the group at all? He was in no way a part of this group  from the beginning.

[Teddy]

I was misinterpreted. My claim was that spherical lightning in any form could cause such damage.

Sorry, spherical lightning haven't killed anyone yet. I draw the line at spherical lightening. You have the floor.
I am not saying that there were no light events in the sky or wherever. They could be martians dancing can-can as far as I ma concern.
But no light show can make 9 fit mountaineers do what they did.
You can bring a camera, take pictures, run away, come back, make pirouettes, but walk for hours without turning back to see what drove you away from the tent on first place - unless you are walking right behind the spherical lightning with no shoes for some reason... you have the floor to explain it.

[tekumze]

That's right. The key to everything is why they went away from the tent and left the things necessary for survival in the tent. So far, all scientific theories have failed to provide any answer.  And that's the main reason I'm on this portal. Why? Because, sometimes it happens that pure ordinary people trigger thinking out of box. And such a coincidence sometimes, make the best results.

By the way, we know the examples that a ball lightning killed people and animals.

Here is my explanation about ball lightning:
Bright glow of lightning balls is created when microwaves become trapped inside a plasma bubble.
At the tip of a lightning stroke reaching the ground, a relativistic electron bunch can be produced, which in turn excites intense microwave radiation.
The latter ionizes the local air and the radiation pressure evacuates the resulting plasma, forming a spherical plasma bubble that stably traps the radiation.
Microwaves trapped inside the continue to generate plasma for a moments to maintain the bright flashes seen during ball lightning.
The fireball eventually fades away as the radiation held within the bubble starts to dissipate - and when microwaves leak out, the lightning balls can dramatically explode.

[Clacon]

I really like this Tumanov guy. Do you think he'll be able to secure permission to exhume and re-examine the bodies again??


I suppose there would likely be almost nothing left but bones - but perhaps we could get confirmation of, for example, Dubinina's hyoid bone and its "extreme" (can't remember the exact word used) mobility, the injuries to the shoulder of I think it was Semyon - which was not documented in the original autopsy but after they exhumed his body; Kolevatov's deformed neck and many other anomalies to bones not recorded by the coroner at the time. I'd be interested to see too, if there are any scratches on the brow bones or any other bones of the individuals missing their eyes to confirm whether or not they were eaten by scavengers or not.

[Teddy]

Now you are talking.

[Clacon]

LOL!! I wish we could all just get online coroners and nuclear engineering degrees, start a Dyatlov Pass GoFundMe page, raise money and go on an expedition there ourselves!

Can you imagine??