A problem with homicide theories

[Manti]

enemy political/military unit (they look like one age/equipment).

Wouldn't this suspicion immediately be dispelled though when the Dyatlov Group start talking in the local Russian accent, and they see there are women in the group ?

[ninja]

This topic=744.0 is a continuation of the first posts sent by ninja, unfortunately in Russian, which makes these posts difficult to understand for the ignorant like me (I use Russian -> French machine translation software. I hope ninja will be able to use English -> Russian software). So preferably start by reading the topic=753.0 :
   
    Dyatlov Pass Forum > Theories Discussion > General Discussion > real timeline  (реальная хронология)
https://forum.dyatlovpass.com/index.php?topic=753.0
           

Reply #4

Ninja. What is that you are actually trying to say  !  ? 

Nevertheless, I think that I have understood the most important thing. ninja explains to us that the hikers were slowed down by the deep soft snow in the Auspiya valley. That is why, during the last 2 days (January 31 and February 1), the hikers were only able to progress over a very short distance and also why the hikers did not have time to write in their diary.
     ninja will also soon explain why he suspects that Zolotaryov is playing a disastrous role...(I may be mistaken).

°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°

I agree, the photos " N°11 and N°12, Loose photos, https://dyatlovpass.com/loose-photos ", of the intallation of a tent were taken on the evening of January 30 and NOT on the evening of February 1.

It does not matter where the tent is exactly located on the night of January 30 to January 31.
ninja  indicates this location by the red cross with the indication "30.01" on the map below.
In my opinion the location of the tent could also be two kilometres further south, at the end of the purple line.

The hikers found themselves in a very soft snow, which made the progression difficult and slow even with skis.
It was this kind of soft snow, but it is not the same place :

See also :
Manti :  Theories Discussion > General Discussion > Walking a km in deep snow
   https://forum.dyatlovpass.com/index.php?topic=740.0

Remark N°1 : The Mansis seem to be better equipped for winter than the hikers --> wider skis, thicker clothes....

Remark N°2
 • While approaching the summits of the Kholat Syakhl (1079) and Otorten by the Auspiya valley the hikers probably followed a short itinerary in distances but longer in time because they had to cross deep and soft snow areas.
It is a "slow" itinerary but sheltered from the wind, which I will henceforth call "the Auspiya Valley itinerary".

 • On the contrary, the hikers would probably have been faster  (would have taken less time)  if they had skied on the hard snow, above the taiga, on the hillsides, following the crest line defined by the peaks :
     706 - 833 - 813 - 968 -937 - 1034 - 1051 - 994 - 1079(Kholat Syakhl)
 
These peaks are visible on the above good map sent by ninja

This route may start with the dotted line (east to west) at the bottom right of the map.
This is a "fast"route on hard snow but exposed to cold wind, which I will henceforth call "the ridge itinerary".

°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°

The arguments of ninja - if I have understood correctly - are based on the fact that we probably do not have any photos or writing on diaries made after January 30, since the "Leaflet Evening Otorten N°1" was recopied and so the date could have been easily changed.

However I think that the details, certainly interesting, which are brought by ninja do not prove that the hikers were not killed during the night of February 1 to February 2.

On the contrary, I think that the hikers were very much alive on January 31 and February 1. After the 30th of January the hikers peacefully went on their way and set up the tent where the rescuers found it on the Kholat Syakhl slope on the evening of the 1st of February.

  • Because how else to explain this picture of the tent :

 

  • And also how to explain the presence of the Labaz containing 50 kg of food, which took several hours to install on the evening of January 31 or on the morning of February 1.

  • And also how to explain the location of the corpses of Kolgomora, Slobodin and Dyatlov on the slope of the Kholat Syakhl (because according to my hypothesis N°3 nobody made the effort to move the bodies away from the place where they fell, stunned or mortally wounded, and never stood up again).

Lets take it back a step.  Why do we think the murderers wanted to make it look "natural"?  As far as I can tell, we get that because there seem to be many easier & quicker ways of killing people.  (They weren't shot or stabbed, for example.)  But there is very little about their actual injuries that looks natural. Additionally, as you point out, no effort was made to provide an excuse for their injuries, or for their leaving the tent.  According to this theory, someone went to great trouble to cover up their own presence at the site, but no trouble at all to provide plausible excuses for the hikers leaving the tent or sustaining such injuries.

It looks to me, then, if this was the case, that the killers were only concerned with a very superficial "fooling" of the public.  KGB killers had to have known that autopsies would be done--and that the injuries of the hikers would be suspicious.  This implies that the killers felt responsible for not leaving any screamingly obvious signs of their own presence, but were relying on officials to make sure everything was properly swept under the rug in the end.

And, perhaps, that was done.

Personally, I am unconvinced by this theory.  Partly because of what I posted earlier about simpler ways of killing people, but also because of the responses of the families at the time.

I feel that the families' responses are usually a good guess when it comes to things like this.  Guesses, yes.  But they have intimate knowledge of the personalities of the hikers, as well as what to expect from the culture and the government. KGB Killers were quite well known to exist.  It was known that the government could make people disappear.  But the families seem much more concerned with the possibility of weapons testing.  While not a definitive answer, in my opinion, this lends a bit of weight to that theory.

While the families didn't have access to the specifications of the tragedy in the same way we do, they had the advantage of living at the same time, in the same place, and knowing the people involved.  This can be very important when it comes to understanding why people behave in curious ways.

you did not quite understand my thoughts correctly, I will try to master the translator better, I did not claim that something slowed down the tourists, I prove the opposite, the tourists were ahead of schedule, at the expense of the car to the 41st block, the horse to the 2nd north, the trail almost to the mountain, there can be no question of any delays, photos, tracks, diaries prove where and when the group was, in order to confuse these facts and adjust everything to the 1-2 number, an unknown diary was written, a warehouse with food was created, the evening was torn off, irrefutable evidence, I will try to bring them all in a convenient form
not made where you are, as well as the Dyatlov group, and this again can be proved, a group of 9 people will definitely leave traces of their arrival and vital activity, for example, a bonfire, a trampled area, felled branches, none of this is in the location "warehouse", there are just personal belongings of the group, far from the most voluminous and heavy, and which could well be useful if the group thought to make a warehouse, besides, they will not have time to die in time, starting from the expected you positions, 6-8 hours to get ready, get up, decompose, go down, make a fire, make a deck and eventually freeze ? strives for the impossible

[Dona]

The murder theory is easy, really. Of all the theories proposed, which of them would 9 people commit suicide over..

None. They were being forced..

[Per Inge Oestmoen]

I dunno-- it seems like the most obvious way to make it look like a natural death in siberia would be to make sure they died of hypothermia.  Force the poorly-dressed campers into the forest and douse them in water. All this talk of highly-trained killing men with their specialized techniques seems so... Hollywood. 

You are correct. The most obvious way to make it look like a natural death was to make it look like death by hypothermia.

That was also intended. That is why the nine students were chased out from their tent without proper winter clothing, in the expectation that they would freeze to death within a very short time.

However, there evidently was a sudden and unexpected rise in temperature which spoiled the attackers' plan. That rise in temperature is documented by data from the weather stations closest to the area. Because of that, the resourceful students did not die as expected, and had to be hunted down. Hence all the injuries. These injuries are consistent with human attack - and can be explained by human attack only.

[Per Inge Oestmoen]

Let me try to get this thread back to its topic.  If the DPI was really homicide, but the killers wanted to make it not look like homicide, why didn't they stage or fabricate some non-homicide reason why the hikers exited their tent and subsequently abandoned it?  For example, why didn't the killers manipulate the campsite to make it look like a tent fire or a small avalanche had occurred?

Because it would be too obvious that there had been no avalanche and no fire there. You cannot just make up an avalanche.

[Per Inge Oestmoen]

The exact time and date of death of the Dyatlov Group is not known.
It would be extremely difficult for someone or some persons on Ski's to kill all of the Dyatlov Group. The several Events ie at The Tent, The Cedar Tree, The Ravine, seem to rule out attack by anyone on Ski's.
In fact its highly unlikely that any other person or persons were involved in the demise of the Dyatlov Group.

- It is known from the last writings of the members of the group that their deaths occurred during the night between February 1 and February 2.

- The several events are all consistent with an attack by trained killers who had to hunt down several groups of people who had fled from their attackers.

- The injuries can only be explained by lethal attack.

- The absence of tracks is what would be expected from the long period between the murder to the arrival at the scene of the first search and rescue team. In fact, most of the tracks of the students were eradicated - and they moved by foot whereas the attackers must have had skies. Ski tracks disappear much faster than deep footprints. Thus, it is a matter of course that no traces of the attackers would be found.

[RMK]

Let me try to get this thread back to its topic.  If the DPI was really homicide, but the killers wanted to make it not look like homicide, why didn't they stage or fabricate some non-homicide reason why the hikers exited their tent and subsequently abandoned it?  For example, why didn't the killers manipulate the campsite to make it look like a tent fire or a small avalanche had occurred?

Because it would be too obvious that there had been no avalanche and no fire there. You cannot just make up an avalanche.

Well, OK, I'll acknowledge that it's not necessarily easy to fabricate an avalanche situation at the campsite.

But people have been "making up avalanches" all the time in the case of the Dyatlov Pass for a while! 

[ElizabethHarris]

Misadventure doesn't account for Ludmilla's tongue being torn from her mouth. Autopsy reports said she had blood in her stomach which means she was alive when it was removed

[RMK]

Misadventure doesn't account for Ludmilla's tongue being torn from her mouth. Autopsy reports said she had blood in her stomach which means she was alive when it was removed

She could have swallowed blood from merely biting her tongue, or from her broken nose.  Also, we don't know that her tongue was torn from her mouth.  The autopsy report merely says "The tongue in the oral cavity is absent."  We can only guess as to why it's absent.

[ElizabethHarris]

Slow departure from the scene is IMO a good case for homicide as they were being controlled and told what to do/where to go. The neat line of footprints doesn't add up with a frenzied escape from the tent. For me, the injuries tell us everything we need to know and again, IMO, they are saying first degree murder.

[ElizabethHarris]

Autopsy said she had copious amounts of blood in her lungs and stomach, in fact the stomach was filled with blood. I think it's a fair assumption that since her tongue is missing it's safe to conclude the blood came from the removal of the tongue. Even the worst bloody nose probably wouldn't drown a person in their own blood but I could be wrong.

[Charles]

nothing here

[sarapuk]

Hello,

There are no indications of the presence of other people in the area.

According to the diaries, they had a "team" of Mansi deer hunters in front of them and the Russian and Mansi workers in their back at District 41.  [[ But no record of other people in the area where they met their demise ]]

No footprints.

But no photo of immaculate snow with a clear and unique track of footprints descending from the tent to the forest. Or is there one ?  [[ But there is a photo of tracks descending from the tent to the forest and it seems to suggest that it was only the Dyatlov Group ]]

Nothing to really suggest that other people were involved.

The nature of the threat that made them all get out of the tent and run to the forest. If they were alone with the laws of physics, there was no reason to leave the tent in such a hurry without shoes and equipment. If they were alone with animals such as bear or wolves, why stop a the the border of the forest (and no marks of bites) ? And they had knives, ski poles and axes which were of no use against the threat (which give a reasonable chance to repel animals but not firearms). If it is neither physical, nor animal... then it is human. It's like if the threat claimed the tent and the hikers knew their only chance was to stay away but not so far from the tent in the hope that the threat would finally leave it. If it's physical, no reason to leave the tent whatsoever, if it's animal, no reason not to fight back with cold steel... so, leaving the tent without fighting back means attacker with firepower and interested with the tent... human. Maybe the attackers stayed in the tent for a while, waiting for the cold to kill the hikers, and cut the tissue when leaving to check and finish off the hikers...  [[  May be other people or animals werent involved  ]]

Greetings

[Charles]

nothing here

[Ziljoe]

Hi Charles,


You mention Slobodin had chest injuries?

"Slobodin having both life threatening fracture injuries in the chest-head area and minor wounds at the back of the hands"

I am not aware of Slobodin having having fractures in the chest area. ( it is possible that I missed this).It has been suggested that his skull fracture was down to freezing and I believe this has been recorded in other cases. Due to Slobodin wearing a hat and having been found with ice under his body there is the possibility that it was freezing that caused the fracture of the skull.

It is interesting that the ravine four have no marks on the backs of their hands. This could support the theory that they died instantly from a snow collapse at the location of the ravine, from above .

I also understand that some of the marks are consistent with victims of hyperthermia  or freezing.

Just my penny's worth.

[Charles]

nothing here

[Ziljoe]

Hi Charles,

Hello Ziljoe

You mention Slobodin had chest injuries?

"Slobodin having both life threatening fracture injuries in the chest-head area and minor wounds at the back of the hands"

I am not aware of Slobodin having having fractures in the chest area. ( it is possible that I missed this). It has been suggested that his skull fracture was down to freezing and I believe this has been recorded in other cases. Due to Slobodin wearing a hat and having been found with ice under his body there is the possibility that it was freezing that caused the fracture of the skull.

I wrote "life threatening fracture injuries in the chest-head area" as you correctly quoted. Chest and head, or upper body, or upper torso and head. Injuries resulting from the most violent impact are all limited to this small area. Whatever the nature of the force, it never severely impacted lower parts of the body, never broke a leg or an arm... But aimed at brain, heart and lungs. As you have 9 hikers and 36 body members (legs and arms), how could a deadly random force have avoided these 36 members and selected 4 times the small area where brain, heart and lungs are located ?

And how could a natural and blind force target so many times the metacarpophalangeal joint ? This force went 4 times to chest and head with enough violence to break many bones (29 bone fractures on 4 hikers: 2 fractures of skull, 3 of scapula, 24 of rib) and kill, then changed its mind, and went after metacarpophalangeal joint but gently this time, restraining from breaking bones, just inflicting bruises and scratches (28 metacarpophalangeal joints injured but not a single broken phalanx) ?

I made a diagram of a Vitruvian skeleton with red dots markings all 29 broken bones... So we can estimate the grouping of the bone breaking blows...



They said "unknown compelling force", "unknown" but not blind... and even looking for the kill.

Greetings

A natural and blind force could have come as several events, maybe not all happening at the same time or not in the way we perceive it to be.

 If we believe the tent was located where it was found and the group exited the tent for one of the many reasons suggested, earth tremor, snow slab , wolverine or crashing rocket for example. It does not mean the injuries happened at the tent ,which I'm sure you'll agree.

Of the 29 bone fractures on 4 hikers: 2 fractures of skull, 3 of scapula, 24 of rib. 27 of these fractures are on 2 hikers and 1 each for a skull fracture on the other 2 hikers. 

3 of these hikers with 28 fractures between them , were found in the ravine under several feet of snow. The snow was reported as being more difficult to dig , which could suggest a snow collapse at some point. I would argue that this is the "unknown compelling force" in this instance . It is reported that only an impact like a car crash could cause such injuries to the chest. This may be the cause of the blunt force trauma and the lack of other injuries for survival.

The other single head fracture was to Slobodin which may have been caused by the slow freezing and the nature of his clothing . His neck is exposed but he is wearing a hat.  I did find a study about fractures of the skull found in deaths of hypothermia and frozen victims, so it can occur under certain circumstances.

Those with the fractures and lack of frostbite are found under a  deep layer of compact snow. Two are found by the large ceder, they show signs of undressing  and minor burns next to a fire. The 3 on the slope are found to have died by hypothermia/freezing. 

They could have left the tent for a number of reasons but the injuries/deaths seem to look like they happened where the bodies were found.

Perhaps the "deadly random force"  was just that, random ....

[Charles]

nothing here

[Ziljoe]

Acnatural and blind force could have come as several events, maybe not all happening at the same time or not in the way we perceive it to be.

If coming as several events and each time hurting the hikers... then it was not a blind force. And the cuts and destructions on the trees are said to be man made, with a knife. Why no marks of "natural and blind force" on the surrounding trees ? No broken rocks, no broken trees.. nothing.

I mean several natural events. A snow collapse at the ravine from the possibility of the cold and also the possibility of getting wet at the ravine. Whatever happened at the tent is what made them descend to the ceder . The "natural and blind force " could be the collapse of snow on top of them from taking shelter in a natural snow bridge at the ravine. The four at the ravine were found under up to 3 meters of snow. At the bottom of a small stream. This would not do any damage to the surrounding trees or rocks.

If we believe the tent was located where it was found and the group exited the tent for one of the many reasons suggested, earth tremor, snow slab , wolverine or crashing rocket for example. It does not mean the injuries happened at the tent ,which I'm sure you'll agree.

Indeed, I agree.

3 of these hikers with 28 fractures between them , were found in the ravine under several feet of snow. The snow was reported as being more difficult to dig , which could suggest a snow collapse at some point. I would argue that this is the "unknown compelling force" in this instance . It is reported that only an impact like a car crash could cause such injuries to the chest. This may be the cause of the blunt force trauma and the lack of other injuries for survival.

But how to compare some collapsing snow with car crash ? On several photos we can see how the snow was cloudy...

The comparison with a car crash is the investigators statement on the injuries to the flail chest injuries. It was an example to the confusion on how such injuries occur. Teddy gives an example of a tree causing these types of injuries and Igor b suggests that it was a snow collapse. I don't know what the exact volume of snow to height ratio it would take to break ribs and fracture a skull but the theory of the snow collapse in a naturally formed snow cave is plausible. There are many examples of people being crushed then suffocating from building snow forts . These examples are sad as they involve families and children but it didn't take a lot of snow to trap them.

https://dyatlovpass.com/resources/340/gallery/15-008.jpg

https://dyatlovpass.com/resources/340/gallery/15-001.jpg

Some snow collapsing slowly and on a short distance, 3-4 meters, with very limited energy... And I didn't read anything about snow in mouth and lungs...

I don't thing they would find snow in the mouth and lungs. It would have turned to water by the time they were found. They were in a state of decay . I also don't know if they would  even able to inhale any snow. If the chest were compressed and the collapse had exhaled their last air they would be able to take a breath.

The other single head fracture was to Slobodin which may have been caused by the slow freezing and the nature of his clothing . His neck is exposed but he is wearing a hat.  I did find a study about fractures of the skull found in deaths of hypothermia and frozen victims, so it can occur under certain circumstances.

Yes, I have read about that. But it only says "it can happen" or "it could happen", no fact, no proof it did happen. But if we consider the most serious injuries, the ones which required very brutal blows, they are all in the area described in my diagram... and this is a fact. Can we say it is a fact ? My idea is to establish a fact here... Not paying attention to anything else but the massive force which was able to break bones and did break bones: this force did not hit one single of the 36 arms and legs available in the group but reached the small area I underlined with a circle. Only matters the number of fractures and the small area were they are concentrated on the human body. And this circle is valid for the 9 hikers by the way. It summarizes all broken bones in the group of 9, it shows the distribution of broken bones for all the 9 hikers, as they were all on site, in a limited perimeter, and experiencing the same event. My Vitruvian skeleton depicts the all group, he is the superposition of all broken bone marks on the 9 skeletons. We can give him the title: "Depiction of all broken bones in the 9 hikers group" and this title will be correct. Counting Dyatlov and Doroschenko makes sense because if in their case the "force" did not break any bone in the circle area, it could have broken a hand or a leg... but it didn't. Dyatlov and Doroschenko could widen the circle if they had a broken foot, but they don't... The force did hit in the circle or not at all. Adding 4 or 5 more hikers does not widen the circle.

Only four had broken bones though,  3 that were in the ravine and 1 on the slope.
But it is an interesting way to look at it and make me think of another angle.

[Ziljoe]

Sorry, I messed up with the quotes on the above threads. I'll try again.

[Charles]

nothing here

[Ziljoe]

Hello Ziljoe !

I mean several natural events. A snow collapse at the ravine from the possibility of the cold and also the possibility of getting wet at the ravine. Whatever happened at the tent is what made them descend to the ceder . The "natural and blind force " could be the collapse of snow on top of them from taking shelter in a natural snow bridge at the ravine. The four at the ravine were found under up to 3 meters of snow. At the bottom of a small stream. This would not do any damage to the surrounding trees or rocks.

Yes but this is not proof of a snow collapse at the ravine. And collapsing from what above ? Where is the above ?



There was a lot of snow everywhere and a very gentle slope...

Hi Charles!

In the other photos it shows them retrieving the 4 ravine bodies from under the snow mass. The statements also confirm this. There are at least 3 theories as to why they were found under the snow mass.

1) They were placed there by staging and they were covered up  by outsiders.

2) they fell in to the ravine and snow slowly drifted up to cover them.

3) They found a natural snow bridge / cave already formed by the stream and decided to take cover there until they could return to the tent and whatever drive them out but the cave collapsed on top of them causing the injuries for the ravine 4 .

I agree there's no proof for anything in this mystery . But it is plausible that given the injuries that this is where the fractures to the bones happened.

But I am interested in your Theories.

[Charles]

nothing here

[Per Inge Oestmoen]

Hello,

There are no indications of the presence of other people in the area.

Nothing to really suggest that other people were involved.

The nature of the threat that made them all get out of the tent and run to the forest. If they were alone with the laws of physics, there was no reason to leave the tent in such a hurry without shoes and equipment. If they were alone with animals such as bear or wolves, why stop a the the border of the forest (and no marks of bites) ? And they had knives, ski poles and axes which were of no use against the threat (which give a reasonable chance to repel animals but not firearms). If it is neither physical, nor animal... then it is human. It's like if the threat claimed the tent and the hikers knew their only chance was to stay away but not so far from the tent in the hope that the threat would finally leave it. If it's physical, no reason to leave the tent whatsoever, if it's animal, no reason not to fight back with cold steel... so, leaving the tent without fighting back means attacker with firepower and interested with the tent... human. Maybe the attackers stayed in the tent for a while, waiting for the cold to kill the hikers, and cut the tissue when leaving to check and finish off the hikers...

You are absolutely right.

If there is no avalanche, and it is clear that there was none, there would be no need to leave a tent improperly dressed unless forced to by human attackers.

Those who planned ordered the attack must have been very intelligent professionals, and they knew that if the hikers just disappeared it would be clear to all that they had been killed. The same holds true if they had been shot and placed in closed coffins. Remember, the nine were resourceful people, and loyal Soviet citizens belonging to the middle strata in Soviet society. If they had witnessed something in the Urals which they were not supposed to know about, it was necessary to end their lives because they nevertheless posed a potential risk to state security. Because they were people with a standing in society, they had to be dispatched in such a way as to make it appear that it was an accident.

The most intelligent way to do it was to chase them out from their tent at gunpoint, and let the cold to the "job." If they all froze to death, it would be the perfectly executed mission.

However, the temperature had taken a sudden rise on this evening. That is why the hikers did not die as expected.

Therefore, the nine had to be hunted down and killed by physical force in order for the mission to be accomplished.

[Per Inge Oestmoen]

Thank you for your interest. But I don't have theories... There are only a few points I stick to as quite certain :

- the weakness of the group, morally, psychologically and physically

- the weakness of Dyatlov as a leader : his instability and lack of judgement

- the boiling anger in Vizhay and smoldering social unrest

- the delirious episode at Herzen's pharmacy

- the class and singularity of Yudin who was so wiser and so deeper than the other hikers

- the effect of the tourists on Ognev's gang of outcasts (like tourists from Switzerland having fun in the suburbs of Monrovia)

- the Mansi hunter's track just beyond the hikers and the fate of his reindeer

- Slobodin not having time to put his second valenka on when they exited the tent

- the pattern of bone breaking blows limited to such a small area

And I am perfectly unable to link these points and make sense of them all... 

The theory I would keep as the last one to stand would be a homicide theory: because of the four hikers suffering from broken bones injuries and because of the general context of tension, unrest, frustration, anger, quarrel, argument, etc...

The homicide theory is more than a theory. Homicide, brilliantly planned and professionally executed, is the only possible explanation of the deaths and the injuries of the Dyatlov group.

The slope was not steep enough to break any bones, and there was demonstrably no trace of an avalanche in the area. Moreover, the injuries are in no way consistent with what is seen from an avalanche. Broken ribs and broken skulls with no damage to the limbs, there is no possibility that these kinds of injuries could be created by an avalanche without accompanying injuries to the other parts of the body.

The injuries of Kolevatov are described very well here on this site, and they are telling:

"This autopsy had similar strange silence about the injuries of the victim. Broken nose, open wound behind the ear and deformed neck might be the result of a fight and be cause of death. On the other hand it could have been caused by natural elements since the body was exposed to nature for three whole months. Yet the doctor ignores this matter and doesn't try to explain the reason for these strange injuries. We should probably add that snapped neck and blow behind the ear is a common sign of killing performed by special forces."

I have studied jiu jitsu, and I recognize the injuries as consistent with lethal close combat techniques I have learned.

Kolevatov's injury to the neck is what happens if a close combat expert breaks your neck, and the technique is one of those recommended in the KGB training manual.

The chest injuries of Dubinina and Zolotaryov are consistent with repeated elbow strikes from a trained killer proficient in close combat.

Why the difference in the injuries? Why did not all the nine victims have the same types of injury? Because professional killers typically group themselves into two or three, each targeting different victims. Also, it is very clear that those four with the most serious and lethal injuries were those who were relatively better dressed than the others. The killers wanted to finish their mission, knowing that the Mansi would observe them. The five students who had the least complete clothing only needed to be incapacitated so that they did not move and keep warm. The four who were better dressed might have survived for days and even gotten help. Therefore, they had to be killed forcefully on the spot in order to ensure death. That is the probable reason why those four with the most clothing on them were also those with the most serious injuries.

The injuries of Slobodin and Thibeaux-Brignolle are also interesting. In particular, the shape of the damage of the crushing of Thibeaux-Brignolle's skull closely resembles that of the butt of a submachine gun. We also see that Thibeaux-Brignolle had a damage to his biceps on his right arm. But no other injuries to the body. To deal a blow to the biceps is a tested and effective way of paralyzing a resistant victim, and this technique is fundamental to police forces all over the world. After being paralyzed and in great pain, Thibeaux-Brignolle likely was thrown to the ground and then lethally wounded with a rifle butt.

Look at these injures. They are all, without exception, what one can observe when professional forces attack with lethal intent. These injuries cannot possibly be caused by accidents or cold weather.

It was only the sudden rise of temperature on the evening between February 1 and February 2 which prevented the planned murder of the nine unfortunates from being a perfectly executed "accident."

The fact that the first leader of the investigation was called to Moscow, and thereafter soon closed the case with the conclusion that it had been an accident, really says it all.

The brilliant intelligence of this killing mission is perhaps best shown by what happened to the Mansi. The authorities first said that the Mansi were suspect, and several Mansi were interrogated.

Then, suddenly, a message came that a seamstress had declared that the tent had been cut from the inside - and it was concluded that the Mansi must be innocent. Of course, there never was any scientific forensic report or documentation, and there is nothing to indicate that the students were those who cut the tent, but the Mansi were freed. The message to the Mansi, who of course had seen the bodies in their area and were aware of what had happened, was very clear even if it was unspoken: "We let you off the hook now, but if you ever tell anyone what you have seen we will invent any necessary evidence against you."

The Mansi understood, and they have kept their silence to this day.

[Jean Daniel Reuss]

The more I reasoned about the many aspects of the DPI, the more I became convinced that the 9 hikers were murdered.

My conviction of the criminal nature of the DPI is therefore closer to the opinion of Per Inge OestMoen and is also compatible with the expert statements of Eduard Tumanov.

However, I disagree on many points of detail. For instance, I think that the attackers were few in number (only 3) and did not possess firearms...
It was the attackers who after their victory in the deadly altercation quietly rested in the shelter of the tent, and then the attackers-and-murderers cut the canvas from the inside, just before leaving the area of the massacre, probably to manifest their joy.

A complete and detailed plausible explanatory scenario, in any case worthy of study even if it does not provide an absolute proof, has been written in Russian by Aleks Kandr:

http://mystery12home.ru/t-ub-gr-dyatlova

So for me, the DPI is a completely banal news story. The only question that puzzles me is why so few people, such as Sasha Kan, refuse to see the simplest fact, that is, that there were many motives for a fierce, ruthless and deadly attack.

After Stalin's death, the end of the Gulag, orchestrated by Krushchev, did not make the USSR a paradise on earth: if the hikers had been warned of the dangers of attacks lurking in the vicinity of Vizhay and had therefore come out of the tent with their three short-handled axes, then perhaps the hikers would have been able to counterattack...

[Charles]

nothing here

[Ziljoe]

Hi Charlie

The fractures are a good Foundation to start from . As you say, they are something factual about the case that we do know about.

To help with statistics I would recommend "Thinking, Fast and Slow: Daniel Kahneman". It's not an easy read but gives good examples of how we can jump to conclusions.

I'm not sure if your statistics add up with regards to 100% fractures across all the victims as only 4 of the 9 had fractures. ( I am not much better at statistics) . The initial findings by the investigation did say that the injuries received were like that of a car accident.

We have several theories for the fractures at the ravine.
1) a tree falling on the group whilst in the tent.
2)  outsiders and deliberate violence.
3)  the possibility of taking shelter in a snow cave, natural or man made that fell on top of them.
4) falling down a steep embankment.
5) an avalanche at the tent location.

Most of these suggest some sort of Traumatic Asphyxia. Research on traumatic asphyxia highlights the following.

Internal petechiae and ecchymoses (e.g., pharyngeal, nasal, laryngeal, epiglottic, tracheal, subpleural, and subepicardial)

•
Pulmonary congestion with subsequent edema

•
Cerebral edema and petechiae

•
Fractures, (e.g., ribs, clavicles, and sternum)

•
Lacerations of abdominal organs (e.g., spleen)

•
Retinal hemorrhages (Purtscher syndrome)

•
Tympanic hemorrhages

•
Pulmonary microembolism (fat and bone marrow)

•
Hypoxic changes in internal organs (e.g., vacuolization and swelling of hepatocytes)


I am no expert on the above but it does mention, landslides, crushing in crowds and deliberate murder. There is a case that goes back to 1800s in Scotland called "burking" . Two gentlemen set about killing innocent people by sitting on their chests and smothering their faces to supply the corpses  for dissection at anatomy lectures.

Due to where the bodies with most fractures were found , I lean towards some sort of snow collapse.

[Charles]

nothing here

[Ziljoe]

Hi Charles ,

I agree with your considerations of any avalanche at the site of the tent causing theses injuries. I don't believe that these fractures could have happened  there . Although a small slide may have been the trigger to leave the location of the tent and seek refuge in the tree line.

I'm not sure if using the 178 million fractures has context though. Because it leaves out another billion  plus people that would have not recorded fractures. So I think the statistics can only be applied from the 4 with fractures.

For example , if there was a bus crash and one person out of 9 on the bus had 20 fractures to their chest but they all died I don't think you could apply that 20 fractures were distributed across the 9 people on the bus.

I am somewhat out of my depth on this and I appreciate what you are saying.
I think that there is a high possibility that they were crushed after finding or digging a snow hole.

However , I'm enjoying your research and ideas and I am interested.