Why did Rustem Slobodin die first?

[Teddy]

This is a speculative reenactment of the events outside the tent up on the slopes of Kholat Syakhl on Dyatlov group last night alive. This story is based the following facts:

• sightings of light effects in the sky are common for this latitude ***
• Zolotoryov and Thibeaux-Brignolles were wearing felt boots (valenki)
• the camera found around Zolotoryov's neck
• frame from Zolotoryov's damaged film
• Thibeaux-Brignolles and Krivonischenko’s knives were found in their parkas inside the tent
• Kolevatov's Finish knife was found inside the tent in March
• The black plastic sheath of that same knife was found outside the tent in May when the snow started to melt
• Kolevatov was wearing one felt boot on his right foot
• Dyatlov's jacket was found outside the tent, knife in his pocket
• Dyatlov's flashlight was found on top of the tent
• Slobodin's injuries
• Rustem's body was the only one with icy bed under from the hardening of the thawing snow

*** Here is a statement of someone familiar with the region:
"I have lived a number of years above the Arctic Circle. Lights, fireballs, and other strange luminescent events are common. People in the lower latitudes only know about 'the Northern Lights' but there is a whole range of strange and spectacular things that happen at the higher latitudes. And it's not all lights either. Sound events often occur too, with and without lights. I have heard and seen things that I would think were alien ships whizzing by or crashing if I wasn't an engineer with a physics education. The amount of energy deflected and channeled by the earth's magnetic field is enormous and causes all sorts of light and sound shows at the higher latitudes.
Everyone wants to treat the fireball events seen around the time of the Dyatlov tragedy as special. Sorry, that sort of thing is not special at all. Go spend a couple winters up there and you'll see. I have. And I am not impressed at all by the stories. They are as common as hurricanes in Florida. Sure, some are bigger than others and some seasons have few and others a lot. But what was seen was not unique."

Let's read about an incident that happened on March 31, 1959. Sergey Sogrin, 4th year student in UPI, went out of the rescuers tent to relief himself at 4 am and saw a "fireball" (the emergency flight of the R-7 ICBM from Tyuratam to Kur). He went back to the tent and alarmed Meshternyakov, who was the watchman at that time, and who woke up the rest of the rescuers. They all went out to look at the fireball the way they were sleeping or else they will miss the show. They were wearing socks only, and trying to step on branches that were laying around the tent. Does it ring a bell? What if Zolotoryov and Thibeaux-Brignolles put their valenki and went out to relief themselves, saw something in the sky, Zolotoryov might have rushed back to the tent to get his camera and called the rest of the hikers to observe whatever was happening in the sky. I am speculating that whatever got the hikers out of the tent was in the sky and not an immediate threat because they would otherwise try to put on some shoes, clothes, and take their knives. Dyatlov went out in his jacket and there was a knife in his pocket. Kolevatov had his Finish knife in a sheath hung on his belt. They would also have exited the tent through its designated opening, and not cutting through the sides, or else they wouldn't arrange and look up in the sky while Zolotoryov is shooting photos above their heads. Cutting through the sides of the tent would call for running for their lives which did not happen. The footprints show walking in the snow, not running. While they watch the sky something goes terribly wrong. But they are 9 young and physically fit people, 2 women amongst them. Behavior analysis says that it is very probable somebody to try to stand up for the group. If they were threatened with (machine) guns and ordered to strip (Dyatlov's jacket was found outside the tent), Kolevatov must have unbuckled his belt to remove the sheath and throw it in the snow. If Slobodin snatched the blade from the sheath and try to confront the attackers, he would have been beaten to be incapacitated, not just for intimidation. He received several heavy blows to the head, capable of knocking anyone out, he had low foot injury (two well-known abrasions remained on the lower third of the left shin), crack in the skull (on the left side) that looks very much like from a butt of an firearm, bilateral hemorrhages in the temporal muscles, abrasions and scratches on the forehead, abrasions on the left cheekbone and eyelid of the right eye. Rustem had bloody nose too. These injuries are consistent with boxing or wrestling i.e. hand to hand fight. Rustem had bruised knuckles and laceration of the skin in the lower part of the right forearm (like Yuri Doroshenko).

Now lets turn our attention to the black plastic sheath that Yuri Yudin and Rimma Kolevatova identified as belonging to Alexander Kolevatov. The knife was a present from Rimma to her brother and she knew it very well. The knife was found in the tent, and the sheath was outside the tent. What is more interesting is why the sheath was without a belt. The owner had to unbuckle the belt, remove the sheath, and then put the belt back through the loops of the pants - this manipulation itself is rather strange, because a knife suspended in a sheath does not cause inconvenience. You can quickly get used to it and stop noticing it, you can even sleep with it without any problems. But Kolevatov for some reason decided to get rid of the sheath. Apart from this, the knife was removed from the sheath outside the tent. If Kolevatov really saved his friends from under the snow slump and cut his tent with his "fink" from the inside, the picture should have been the opposite - the empty sheath is in the tent, and the knife is outside it. That's not the case though. Something prompted Alexander Kolevatov to remove the knife in its sheath from the belt and throw it into the snow, as if they were unnecessary to him - and this action is completely absurd in the case of any non-criminal scenario of events. A knife dramatically increases his chances of survival in an uncertain environment. The logic in removing the sheath from the belt and throwing out the knife can only be in case of forced disarmament, i.e. execution of the team under threat of reprisal.

Another scenario - there is an avalanche and Kolevatov, the only one with his knife on the belt pulls it out, cuts the tent from the inside to secure an escape route, then throws the knife away to help his friends out. The knife is registered to him and if he loses the "Finn" he can get up to 5 years of imprisonment (Article 182 of the Criminal Code of the RSFSR in the redaction of 1926 with additions from 1933 and 1935). Lets say Kolevatov is not rational. But why stop outside and make the much more lengthy exercise of removing the empty sheath from his belt?

After Kolevatov put his "Finn" in the sheath on the snow, someone tried to use the knife. There is no other explanation why the sheath is empty outside the tent. Alexei Rakitin in his article "Why Rustem Slobodin froze first?" ("Почему Рустем Слободин замёрз первым?") in his online edition "Death is not far behind... " (my friend Andrei Andreev gave me this loose translation of "Смерть, идущая по следу…") makes a very good speculative reenactment of the events surrounding the first encounter of the group with their attackers. Because of Rustem Slobodin's character, background, type of injuries and how he was found - Rakitin believes that Rustem Slobodin was the person who pulled the "Finn" out of the sheath and try to resist. The moment when he must have tried that would be when he bent to remove his felt boots. He was found with only one felt boot on his right foot. Slobodin remained in the same felt-boots: the first he took off himself before grabbing the knife, and after the beating no one began to pull off the second felt from the unconscious body.

The other two hikers wearing felt boots were Nikolai Thibeaux-Brignolles and Semyon Zolotaryov. In my scenario they have their boots on because they went out to relief themselves while the rest of the hikers were called out to look at "fireball" in the sky. Even if the attackers did not care about their boots and marched the hikers down the slope after Rustem caused the commotion, I cannot explain why they didn't "loose" Zolotoryov's camera. No matter who they were, the perpetrators must have known what a camera was for and that there could be incriminating photos that will survive the ordeal. In Rakitin's scenario Nikolai Thibeaux-Brignolles and Semyon Zolotaryov were out when the tent was attacked and they hid or ran in the dark, and joined their friends later on when they were already marching down the slope. I have it difficult to adhere to this version because the hikers were stalked before the confrontation. I don't see a way that Thibeaux-Brignolles and Zolotaryov will come out unnoticed. They couldn't have been out in their felt boots for more than 5-10 mins, and the traces of urine were not far away from the tent. Nobody goes to pee in the untrampled snow.

The beating of Slobodin was the climax in the scene at the tent. Suppressed by all seen and heard, not understanding the essence of what is happening, the hikers have already obediently performed the last command of their tormentors: "Get out of here while you can!" Having picked up Rustem Slobodin, who was not yet fully come to life, the tourists pulled down the slope, intuitively realizing not to go in the direction of the labaz (cache), so their attackers would not vandalize the provisions they have left there.
The hikers did not run, the attackers told them to scram. Their first reaction to the incident was quite understandable - they were relieved that the extremely shameful, disgusting and senseless scene of their general humiliation and beating had ended. The weather was relatively warm -5°С to -7°С - and compared to the stress such cold did not seem prohibitive or even dangerous. Very soon - literally a few dozen meters from the tent - the group was joined by the Thibeaux-Brignolles and Zolotaryov. While going down the slope the reunited group was engaged in a animated discussion of the incident, a discussion that must have been very polemical and even conflicting. Zolotaryov knew more than others and had the most extensive life experience, it he must have offered a plan, perhaps even imposed it on the rest of the group. What this action plan was, we will never know and can only guess.
We know that the tracks down the slope converged, then parted, but kept a common direction, and the hikers were always within a earshot. They certainly talked on the move, adrenaline high, vigorously proving and convincing each other of one thing or another. So, what does it prove? Objectively, nothing, or rather, just that the hikers descending the slope had the intention of sticking together. However, for a psychologist this "swarming of the footsteps" ("Human Swarming and the future of Collective Intelligence") there is considerable meaning. Hikers intuitively divided into groups "according to preferences" - when someone suggested a reasonable plan of action, supporters moved closer to him, when another reasonable proposal followed - people went to him. This does not mean that the hikers ran from one leader to another, this is unconscious movement.

Unfortunately the tracks were not photographed and studied by the investigators. If this were the case, after the discovery of the corpses, prints on the snow could have been matched to a specific person. Imagine being able to say: here Lyudmila Dubinina walks for 150 m along with Dyatlov, and then moves closer to Zolotaryov and continues descending beside him; Kolevatov always remains near Semen Zolotaryov; Rustem Slobodin moves a little apart from the rest of the hikers and in a general does not seem to be involved in the conversation ... We could have followed each of the group members down the slope and their body language could have said a lot about the last hours of their lives, about the clustering from the cedar in particular.

Rustem Slobodin was suffering from the cerebral trauma he received stumbled behind the group. At a distance of about 1 km from the tent he fell into the snow. Rustem lost consciousness and the ability to move about 20 mins after the attack. It is well known that people who have suffered the heaviest knockout and who received a severe closed brain injury can recover and for some time demonstrate satisfactory condition (until the intracranial hemorrhage begins to put pressure on the meninges). Soccer players can continue the game, the boxer can break into a fight ... well-known video recordings of athletes who received death craniocerebral injuries during the competition, but at the same time show complete self-control and external well-being for a while. After 10-20 minutes, it ends with a call to the team physician first, and then - the paramedics. This phenomenon of the seeming vigor of an already actually dying person is sometimes very accurately called "deferred death". The speed of development of the process is significantly affected by the motor activity of the victim and the temperature of the environment - both slow the growth of hemorrhage.

No one noticed the disappearance of Rustem Slobodin in the dark - the group went ahead leaving their mortally wounded friend lagging behind. Rustem was the first to die, this is clearly indicated by the high temperature of his body at the time of the fall in the snow. Underneath was discovered the so-called "bed of the corpse", a layer of melted snow that forms from the warmth of the body. Such a "bed of the corpse" was present only under Slobodin's body, the rest of the hikers found on the slope and at the cedar were already very cold by the time they fell to the ground.

[Armide]

I like this version a lot, thanks for sharing. The whole story works very well in accordance to most of the facts, and I never thought of the idea that Rustem died first. I still wonder what happened after all of them scrambled down the hill. What do you think happened later on to the other hikers who sustained other injuries? Do you think the attackers beat them too or that they sustained them themselves?

[Teddy]

I like this version a lot, thanks for sharing. The whole story works very well in accordance to most of the facts, and I never thought of the idea that Rustem died first. I still wonder what happened after all of them scrambled down the hill. What do you think happened later on to the other hikers who sustained other injuries? Do you think the attackers beat them too or that they sustained them themselves?

The perpetrators couldn't believe that the hikers still haven't died, starting a fire and all... I think the fire played a crucial role for the monsters to trot down the hill and finish them. Fact is that the longer they lived the more they were beaten. The ones that died last sustained the worse injuries. I don't see why would anybody speculate that the hikers beat each other to death? Why would they do such a thing?

[Loose}{Cannon]

Interesting facts about the knife and sheath. 

So your saying that both lights in the sky ANY outsiders coming into camp could have more/less happened in tandem?

[Teddy]

Interesting facts about the knife and sheath. 

So your saying that both lights in the sky ANY outsiders coming into camp could have more/less happened in tandem?

To me the fact that Zolotaryov went out with a camera hanging on his neck speaks of lights in the sky. The behavior of other rescuers when there are lights in the sky at night is the same - go out to watch barefoot. Once out, with camera and no shoes, it seems to me plausible that they encounter their tormentors for first time right then and there.

[SteveCalley]

On the lights - the description sounds like a multistage rocket, witnessed by people who never saw one before or understood how they work. That's most people in 1959. A test flight, detonated deliberately after staging, to destroy spy evidence. S-75 Dvina. U-2 killer. Used about one year later in action. In February 1959 it was under rapid development.

[SteveCalley]

The Three fought like wildcats, that's for sure. Zina dished out a beating to someone. You notice her poor wounded hands? She was the only one with fingernail injuries. Someone's eyes may have been clawed out. And like the men, she also had punch injuries to her knuckles. What a fighter!
It's sad that such bravery did not triumph-the enemy had a rifle butt for Rustem, and a baton weapon that hit Zina. Rustem was immobile for a long time before he succumbed; thus the icy deathbed. Igor and Zina never gave up, dying while still crawling. How brave! A toast to some tough kids with heart.

[Per Inge Oestmoen]

The perpetrators couldn't believe that the hikers still haven't died, starting a fire and all... I think the fire played a crucial role for the monsters to trot down the hill and finish them. Fact is that the longer they lived the more they were beaten. The ones that died last sustained the worse injuries. I don't see why would anybody speculate that the hikers beat each other to death? Why would they do such a thing?

The films and diaries all demonstrate that the atmosphere was good and friendly between the group members. There is nothing that points to any of them having caused the death of their friends.

As for the question of why Rustem Slobodin died first, since we do not know definitely we can only guess. My guess is that since Slobodin was described as the most athletic in the group, he tried to fight back first as soon as he sensed that the attackers would avoid to leave telling marks like bullet wounds and knife cuts. But even if he - somewhat surprisingly - managed to hit his attackers, he succumbed to the killers after having received a hard blow that fractured his skull and must have rendered him incapacitated.

The fact that the four who supposedly died last - Dubinina, Zolotaryov, Kolevatov and Thibeaux-Brignolle - also were those who were attacked with the strongest force is significant, and is just another piece of evidence that the group was indeed attacked by people with the intention to kill.

The way I see it, the crucial factor here is that those four were those who had the best clothing. Since they were better dressed than the others, it is likely that the killers judged it necessary to ensure their rapid death to get the job done - which they did by using greater force that resulted in more severe injuries than those found in the five first victims who were so badly dressed that the cold completed the killing. The attackers knew very well what they did, and the execution of their attack was very intelligent and calculated.

[SteveCalley]

Cruelty, practiced human cruelty, like a dancer or fencer practices. I doubt even the angriest Khanty could do such human desecration without mercy. Dyatlov and Zina perhaps trussed in the snow to die. These assassins were monsters by training. Who did such devilish training? That answers a lot of the riddle.

[WAB]

Cruelty, practiced human cruelty, like a dancer or fencer practices. I doubt even the angriest Khanty could do such human desecration without mercy.

Yes, of course. But I have 2 remarks:
1.Such it is almost impossible to make in the conditions of the N.Ural`s wood in the winter.
2. Khany and Munsi it is 2 different people, as Russian and Ukrainian or different groups of North American Indians, for example: as Cherokee and Seminole or Iroquois. At them different culture and inhabitancy.

 

Dyatlov and Zina perhaps trussed in the snow to die.

This simplification in concept or misunderstanding of why there are such signs is possible. Such traces on foot, probably were that they used «bakhily» - canvas bags be located on foot what to protect boots for skis from get soaked from snow. In these picture are visible «bakhily» standing at Krivonishchenko (pic. #1)
 
    pic. #1

On next picture it is visible that outsets are mount in the bottom of feet and about a foot knee.
On extension picture it is ( pic. #2)
 
    pic. #2


It is possible to see that if strongly to tighten outsets standing there can be a trace as though to it connected feet. Actually it is not present.
And at Djatlov ( pic #3)
 
pic. #3 

On pic.#3 you visible that outsets in the bottom of feet at it are compressed by a rope, and above (a pink ellipse) it is not appreciable. Probably, because there it had not outsets a rope, and a usual elastic band.

These assassins were monsters by training. Who did such devilish training? That answers a lot of the riddle.

In this history it is a lot of myths and conjectures. No monsters there existing. As it can be seen on an example «bakhily», it is possible to think up much that actually it will be simple imagination.


PS. I have not understood, if in this Subject it is necessary to discuss «Why did Rustem Slobodin die first?», why we speak about the general questions, or of about Rustem Slobodin die?
If to know many elements of this incident, it turns out, what Rustem Slobodin die no first?

[SteveCalley]

Yes, I see. I speculate with so little experience in these matters, thanks.

[hanno]

I don't think they were killed by other people. There is too much that speaks against that:

1) Absolutely no traces. To kill nine people it must have been a group and this group must have slept somewhere, must have eaten something and so on. The rescue team searched the whole area (even by helicopter), and there is no record of other human traces.

2) If they were killed, than it was planned and carried out by someone who has experience with such things (to leave no obvious traces). But in such a case I would never allow someone to carry a camera neither to carry notebook and pencil. But both was the case. Beyond this I would force all to wear only underwear and not leave someone well equipped.

3) Absolutely no motive. To try to kill a group of nine people, there must be a very good reason. There is so much risk that something goes wrong.

[WAB]

I don't think they were killed by other people. There is too much that speaks against that:

Yes, it so. I cannot is detailed answer today. Unfortunately. A bit later, please.

[WAB]

I answer, as promised...

I don't think they were killed by other people. There is too much that speaks against that:

1) Absolutely no traces. To kill nine people it must have been a group and this group must have slept somewhere, must have eaten something and so on. The rescue team searched the whole area (even by helicopter), and there is no record of other human traces.

Yes.

2) If they were killed, than it was planned and carried out by someone who has experience with such things (to leave no obvious traces). But in such a case I would never allow someone to carry a camera neither to carry notebook and pencil. But both was the case. Beyond this I would force all to wear only underwear and not leave someone well equipped.

It is possible to agree with such statements, but it not is the main thing.
The place very kept away and gets there people having very serious skills could only. Travellers prepared for travel in the winter, local hunters and aboriginals - Mansi - can be such only.
Let's consider by turns each of these parts:

1. Similar travellers cannot. Because known travellers were not closer than in 40 … 50 km (~ 25 … 30 mi), and only a few days later. Unknown travellers there could not get, because all ways of the approach to this place are known, it is not enough of them - only 1 or 2, and they were well looked through by local people. Such observation it is not write anywhere. I should remind that the nearest the transport point is on distance about 120 km (~ 75 mi).

2. Local resident hunters do not move on such distances. At them the course radius makes approximately 25 … 30 km (~ 15 … 18 mi) round that settlement where they live. The nearest settlement of local resident hunters is in 120 km (~ 75 mi).

3. Mansi do not leave from wooding zone. As far as I know, their nearest track is in wooding zone, as long 10 … 12 km (~ 6 … 8 mi) from a place of death to Dyatlov team. It is the information directly from Mansi-hunters.

As resume it is necessary to tell still that in a wooding zone (on approach to mountain and in riverheads of Auspija and the river Lozva) it has not been found traces except Dyatlov team and the hunter Mansi on which trevel Dyatlov team. It is necessary to leave traces in a wooding zone which cannot be found out on small details. These are long observation on similar searches in different regions.

3) Absolutely no motive. To try to kill a group of nine people, there must be a very good reason. There is so much risk that something goes wrong.

Yes, of course!  Except absence of the basis, probably, that any murderer would try to hide bodies, instead of to parade them, artistically having spread out them on a slope. 

[Per Inge Oestmoen]

I don't think they were killed by other people. There is too much that speaks against that:

1) Absolutely no traces. To kill nine people it must have been a group and this group must have slept somewhere, must have eaten something and so on. The rescue team searched the whole area (even by helicopter), and there is no record of other human traces.

2) If they were killed, than it was planned and carried out by someone who has experience with such things (to leave no obvious traces). But in such a case I would never allow someone to carry a camera neither to carry notebook and pencil. But both was the case. Beyond this I would force all to wear only underwear and not leave someone well equipped.

3) Absolutely no motive. To try to kill a group of nine people, there must be a very good reason. There is so much risk that something goes wrong.

Answer to 1)

The fact that there were no traces of other people is natural. If the attackers used skis and/or helicopter - which they must have done - their traces would have been lost. Especially if broad mountain skies were used. Further; the attackers did not need to stay in the area for long. They accomplished their mission, waited for only as long as it took to ensure the death of all the victims, and then left after having attempted to create an "accident." The fact that investigators were instructed from above the draw the "correct" conclusions testify to the authorities' desire to conceal the reality of murder. Whether this means that the same authorities were also responsible for the act is another question, and one which can only be answered if someone who knows is willing to talk.

Answer to 2)

The notebook and pencil is no danger if the owners are dead. The victims may have written something, but the attackers did not fail to search the bodies - their clothing also showed indications of that - and remove any texts while letting the notebooks and pencil stay with the corpse. Also, none of the victims were well equipped for survival in winter conditions. It is more than likely that the killers had expected the Dyatlov group to die from hypothermia after a short time, but it did not happen because the temperature that night did not fall below -25C and possibly was a bit higher.

As it was, all the victims left the tent with insufficient equipment. Humans do not survive for long in the winter without gloves and warm boots - and that was exactly what the victims did not have. If they have left the tent voluntarily they would have put on their winter parkas, their boots and gloves. They did not leave the tent in panic and disorder, and they were placed in a line before they went - and the tracks showed that they did not flee in panic. So, they left in a slow pace and with no signs of panic or mental disarray - but without proper clothing. This indicates that they were forced out from the tent, and that the attackers wanted them to perish in the cold so that it would seem that it was an accident and that they froze to death.

But the Dyatlov group did not die that soon, because the temperature was not as low as the attackers might have expected and the hikers were in good shape. Therefore the attackers had to ensure their deaths - and the attackers left no traces because they must have used skis which do not leave deep tracks that last long the way footprints do. All the bodies showed injuries that were strongly indicative of having been caused by a violent attack, and crushed skulls, crushed rib cages and bloodied faces tell their tale. The four last to die were those who had a little better clothing than the others, they were those who managed to flee furthest from the tent, and the unknown attackers must have realized that these four would be able to survive for days and even escape. Since the attackers were there to accomplish a mission and did not intend to stay, they quickly and forcefully killed the last four. This also explains why the last four sustained the most severe injuries. By the way, no superhuman force is required to crush rib cages and skulls if one has fighting skills. The broken ribs suffered by two of the victims, for example, is consistent with the injuries that result from forceful elbow strikes.

All the dead showed signs of having been the victims of homicide, and even Igor Dyatlov who seem to have died from freezing had marks on his hands and feet that could indicate that he was tied and left in the snow to freeze to death in addition to suspicious bruises on his hands.

All this can be seen in the autopsy reports. There is no possibility that the injuries of the victims could be caused by falls or other accidents.

Svetlana Oss has recently written a book called "Don't go there" where she describes the injuries in detail, and she also quotes modern forensic experts who also state that the injuries could not be the result of accidents. I recommend Svetlana Oss' book because it goes into great detail on the forensic evidence and the injuries that clearly demonstrate that this was murder. Svetlana Oss also has proposed a theory about who did it, how and why, but that is in my opinion the weak part of the book because even if it is possible to prove that the Dyatlov group was murdered it is impossible to prove who the killers were and why they killed. These questions can only be answered by some who know. Those who know have so far been silent.

Answer to 3)

The motive remains a true mystery here.

Why were the nine hikers killed, and who were the perpetrators? For a killing to take place, and in particular an exceedingly intelligent killing, there has to be a motive and a plan. Sadly, we cannot know the answers before someone talks. There must still be some living who know what happened and why, but time is running out almost sixty years after the tragedy in the Dyatlov pass.

[Per Inge Oestmoen]

Yes, of course!  Except absence of the basis, probably, that any murderer would try to hide bodies, instead of to parade them, artistically having spread out them on a slope. 

Intelligent murderers endeavor to make the deed seem like an accident.

Many things point to the Dyatlov pass tragedy being a case in point. It was an "accident." Does this indicate who did it? In my opinion, no. The questions about the motive and who the guilty ones were are still left unanswered.

However, and this is the bottom line: It is the forensic evidence, shown elsewhere on this site and also described in logical detail in Svetlana Oss' "Don't go there" that tells us that this was no accident. The nine unfortunates were killed.

[SteveCalley]

The answer is not one thing. There is irreducible complexity. That points to the Organs of State.

[SteveCalley]

Ummm... maybe b-coz everyone else died after?

[Per Inge Oestmoen]

It is a paradox. The cause was effected by a rational entity or entities, without doubt. No force majeúre. The immediate causes of each small set of events were rational. Yet it all seems purposeless. There is no plan whatsoever that can be divined from these discordant actions.
For example, in the lethal wounds of the unfortunates in the den, no credible cause can be proposed other than explosion, most likely a concussion grenade.
The only combination of effects that looks like this is a massive screw-up, a clusterf_ck. Any of several groups - KGB, MVD, People's Control- could make this sort of mess. But the GRU, probably not.

All the injuries suffered by the last four people who were found in the area around the small brook are consistent with an attack by humans who intended to kill.

Further, the injuries could realistically only be caused by human killers. We go through them one by one.

Ljudmilla Dubinina had:

- Broken ribs. Ribs 2, 3, 4, 5 are broken on the right side, and ribs 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 are broken on the left side. This pattern is consistent with what one can see as a result of repeated elbow strikes to the rib cage.

I have trained jiu jitsu where we went through this in theory and practice, therefore I can say this with confidence albeit also with sadness since I understand what terror these people must have suffered. I can assure you all that a normally strong person who employs a good technique into elbow strikes to the rib cage can accomplish precisely what is seen here. No bomb blasts, no cars and no superhuman strength is required. The graphical illustration of Dubinina's broken ribs shows exactly what happens - the fractures are demonstrably at the exact points where the ribs would give when hit by a determined attacker's elbows. It is conceivable that one attacker held Dubinina while the killer hit her repeatedly and lethally.

- Broken and flattened cartilage of the nose. This seems to be the result of the initial blow(s) to the victim in order to confuse and paralyze her with pain and fear to control her to administer the actual killing blows.

- Bruise in the middle left thigh, size 10x5 cm.

Dubinina also had other damage to her body, but they are mostly inconsequential and seem to be the result of decomposition save for one detail: Her missing tongue. There is no obvious explanation for the missing tongue. 

Semyon Zolotaryov had:

- Broken ribs. Ribs 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 on his left side were broken in the same way as we saw in Dubinina.

- Open wound on the right side of the skull with exposed bone, 8x6 cm in size. This is consistent with what we see when a human is hit by a hard object when the victim does not wear any headgear. Perhaps a rifle butt.

Alexander Kolevatov had:

- Broken nose. Again, a likely result of a hard blow to the face.

- Open wound behind ear, size 3x1.5 cm. This cannot be caused by a fall, and of course not by a car or a bomb blast - none of which are required or evidenced - or even possible - in this situation. Kolevatov must have been hit hard behind the ear. It merits mention that in close combat techniques such a blow is used to break the structures of the neck and cause rapid paralysis and death, whether the blow is dealt by the attacker's hand or for example a gun.

- Finally, the deformed and broken neck.

Nikolai Thibeaux-Brignolle had:

- Multiple fractures to the temporal bone, with extensions to the frontal and sphenoid bones, the close up of the fractures to the skull is shown on the picture.

- Bruise on the upper lip on the left side.

- hemorrhage on the lower forearm, size 10x12 cm.

These injuries are strong evidence of the man having been attacked, even when considered separately. When judged together, it is hardly possible to avoid the conclusion that this was murder. The bruise on the upper lip and hemorrhage on the lower forearm would be damage done at the moment when the attackers connected in order to control him, and the fractures of the skull are typical of what happens when a human is hit by a rifle butt although the precise nature of the tool with which this victim was hit cannot be ascertained. There was no damage to the soft tissue, and this can only be because Thibeaux-Brignolle wore headgear. The headgear would protect the soft tissue from being bruised, but it could not prevent the impact from the blow from crushing the bone.

We could go on in the same way with the victims found in February. The available evidence leaves no doubt: The Dyatlov group members were the victims of a deliberately lethal attack by people who wanted to make it seem like an accident.

The perpetrators probably foresaw that the lack of bullet wounds or knife cuts would make it easier for them to gloss over the fact of murder, and sadly they have been proven correct. Even if all evidence points to the Dyatlov pass tragedy being caused by a group of human attackers, some still doubt that it was so - largely because the motive is unknown.

However, we ought not to start with the question of motive when all evidence shows us that these people were murdered and more recent analyses of the evidence has only served to strengthen the only sensible conclusion. They were victims of homicide, the questions to ask are about why the deed was done and who did it. We will not know, until someone who knows will reveal the truth.

Svetlana Oss has given us valuable new information, and even if I do not agree with the conclusion she ends up with regarding who the perpetrators were in her book "Don't go there" I think that book is a "must read" for everyone who still is in doubt that the nine hikers were in fact killed by unknown human attackers that fateful cold Siberian night in February 1959.

[SteveCalley]

I am very confused by your answer. I defer to the pathologist who did autopsy.

[Per Inge Oestmoen]

I answer, as promised...

[...]

3. Mansi do not leave from wooding zone. As far as I know, their nearest track is in wooding zone, as long 10 … 12 km (~ 6 … 8 mi) from a place of death to Dyatlov team. It is the information directly from Mansi-hunters.

The Mansi evidently were in the area, and very close to the camp too:

http://dyatlovpass.com/controversy

Mansi chum

"A Mansi chum (definition) was observed North-East from where Dyatlov group pitched their tent on the night of January 30. A trail leading to the chum was passing 200 feet from where they camped."

Does this mean that the Mansi killed the nine hikers? Absolutely not. Svetlana Oss has done an admirable job in incontrovertibly demonstrating that the nine young people were victims of murder. However, personally I do not share her final conclusion.

We cannot know who the killers were until someone who knows will talk.

[blackjackie]

I always thought they were killed, but I never thought about this hypothesis. I once believed he died while trying to come back to the tent, but this version convinces me more, now that I read of the icy bed under his body. Thanks for sharing!
So, I think they were taken out of the tent with the violence and beaten, but what happened next? Something doesn't fit:
- Reaching the tree along with their attackers, lighting a fire. Some taking the clothes of the deads, others trying to come back to the tent. The presence of the attackers makes it illogical.
- Escaping the attackers: it must be difficult to escape in the dark, with those temperatures, for so long, without being reached.
What do you think?

[sarapuk]

There is nothing to suggest that Rustem Slobodin died first.  Its impossible to say with our present knowledge of events and missing evidence.

[Teddy]

There is nothing to suggest that Rustem Slobodin died first.  Its impossible to say with our present knowledge of events and missing evidence.

I agree. It's all speculation as most of the rumble around this case. But I find the presumptions I based this theory on more factual than most of the other theories are based on.
Still, each and every point can be argued. For example the fact that Rustem's body was the only one with icy bed is not true. This observation and conclusion was mentioned in Akselrod's testimony, but he hasn't seen the rest of the bodies when they were found, so if Akselrod was the only one registering the fact, then the rest just might as well have icy beds that nobody testified about. At least we have one dying spot that looks like hasn't been doctored.

[Loose}{Cannon]

Ice bed, no ice bed....  sounds like something that SHOULD have been documented in a PROPER investigation. 

[sarapuk]

Ice bed, no ice bed....  sounds like something that SHOULD have been documented in a PROPER investigation.

ABSOLUTELY.  I dont know about you or other Members but since I became interested in this mystery I have taken to learning something about FORENSIC SCIENCE. Forensics is certainly something that was lacking from the original investigation. As soon as foul play was suspected the Forensics people should have been in there immediately.  Forensics as a discipline as been around a very long time, even in the former USSR.  There can be no excuses as to why there was no proper Forensic investigation at the scene at the time or even later. And that fact alone casts a dark cloud over this mystery.