What the expert saw: the tent was cut from the inside
And it was connected with the fact that the nature of the sections of the tents of the deceased tourists was reliably revealed. It turned out that the ramp was cut not from the outside, but from the inside, and so it was done by the tourists themselves. And this discovery immediately overturned the assumption of actions outside the tent of a certain vandal destroyer. Yes, the fear factor as an incentive for an emergency leave of the tent remained, but it became clear that the source of this fear was clearly not Mansi.
Vladimir Ivanovich Korotaev, who was a young investigator of the Ivdel Prosecutor's Office in 1959, recalled the events of that time, saying that the aforementioned discovery was made almost by accident. A tent hung in the Leninist room of the Ivdel UVD (the largest compartment in the building) was seen by a cutter woman invited to sew a uniform. She had only one glance to confidently say that, say, your tent is cut from the inside! The said made a real sensation, because before that the investigation considered otherwise. The result of a short conversation was not only the tailoring of the uniform for Korotaev, but also the direction of the tent for a forensic examination, designed with scientific certainty to establish the true origin of the sections.
The examination was carried out in the Sverdlovsk Scientific Forensic Laboratory in April 1959 by a senior forensic expert, senior research associate, Henrietta Eliseevna Churkina (started on April 3, finished on the 16th). This document is very interesting, primarily because the tent is a kind of "knot" of the tragedy, a place in which there has been an unexplained chain of events that led to the exodus of stripped and wounded tourists in the freezing cold. To answer the question "what and how was happening in the tent in the last minutes of people's stay there?" Means, in fact, to explain the logic of the behavior of tourists in the following hours.
The examination found that on the slope of the tent, facing down the slope (ie, on the right hand, when viewed from the entrance), there were 3 significant sections (length about 89, 31 and 42 cm); 2 significant pieces of tissue were torn out and absent. In addition, there was a cut from the ridge to the side wall, located at the far end of the ramp, near the very back wall. The expert noted that on the inside of the canvas there are "surface damages of the tissue in the form of (...) punctures, incisions of the fabric and very thin scratches. (...) Scratches are observed in the surface damage of the filaments: the filaments are either cut in half, or simply dye is scratched from them and the unpainted parts are visible. " These injuries were caused by cutting from the inside with a knife, and the blade did not immediately cut the fabric. In other words, the person who decided to cut the tent, caused a number of knife hits, which did not lead to piercing the ramp, because of which he had to repeat his attempts over and over again.
This saw the tent of the dead group Henriet Eliseevna Churkina. Under the scheme, however, made a postscript, indicating that the dimensions are approximate and the damage is not indicated. It is clear that her scheme, like any generalized drawing, has the right to be conditional, but in this case Henrietta Eliseevna's scheme came out quite unlike the model. What are only side stretch marks, after all, in the form as they are drawn from the expert, stretch marks can not fix the ends of the tent!
What can you say about such a conclusion? You can not call it satisfactory.
In evaluating this examination, the following considerations come to mind: a) The expert has not described and investigated not all damages to the fabric of the tent, more precisely, a smaller part of those. The reason for such an attitude of the expert to the object of research is incomprehensible. In the context of this incompleteness of the narrative of the examination, it is important to point out that the study did not undergo a tear (or incision) of the tent on the part that was facing up the slope (to the left when viewed from the entrance). It is well known that such a rupture (or incision) existed and it was plugged up by the jacket of Igor Dyatlov. But neither the extent of this damage nor its exact location is known; b) What motivated the expert to selectively approach the description and study of the incisions and tears that existed on the tent can not be clarified, at least from the case materials available at this stage. Perhaps Henrietta Eliseevna was guided by a certain division of damage into "important" and "unimportant", but the criterion of such a division is completely incomprehensible. In any case, the evaluation of the importance of the traces on the tent and its damages should have been carried out by an investigator who owns the entire amount of information on the case, but not an expert who performs important but still auxiliary functions; c) The expert should have expressed his opinion about the time of cutting the tent and the tools used for this. The latter was important, especially since there were as few as possible such tools as the minimum, two (one is the one with which the tent was cut from the inside and the second by the ice pick, which was used by Slobtsov on February 26). The fact that the investigator did not formulate such questions in his ruling on the appointment of an expert characterizes only his, the investigator, insufficient professional training. But it is important to remember that the law gives the expert the right to go beyond the formal framework and to indicate in his conclusions significant conclusions and circumstances about which issues were not raised. The expert Churkina, however, did not. It will not be a mistake to say that in this case we have evidence not only of mutual negligence of the persons most important in this investigation, but also of their banal profnerability.
When looking at the photos of the tent of the Djatlov group known today, one immediately catches the apparent inconsistency of the actual number of cuts to the one that Henrietta Churkina described. On the photographed ramp they are much more numerous than three. It should be specially noted that there are no pictures of normal, that is, made from the point of view of the requirements of criminology, at the moment. There are photos taken in the Leninsky room of the Ivdel UVD building mentioned above, on which you can see a tent hanging on slightly stretched rope-braces as if it were a regular sheet after washing. The photographer was too close to the subject of the survey, so he could not take a picture of the overall appearance of the tent. The tent was "broken" into 2 photographs, and the far from the entrance part still did not fit in the second frame, and remained not photographed at all. When trying to combine 2 photographs into one, it turns out that their scales do not coincide, apparently, after making the first photograph, the photographer changed the shooting point and approached the photographing object. But it's bad not even this, but the fact that in his work the expert did not use a dimensional ruler that would allow to determine with the necessary accuracy the dimensions of the details of interest to the viewer.
In addition to those already mentioned, these photos also have a considerable amount of blemish, which can not be ignored: the fabric on the site of one of the major rifts is thrown away in such a way that it obscures part of the slope. Her position does not allow seeing damage to the tissue that could be in that place. Before photographing, it was necessary to fix this piece of cloth as it was in the natural position, and only after that to take a picture. By the way, such an operation (i.e., returning to a pristine position) would allow us to judge the size of the missing tent fragments with exhaustive accuracy, rather than being guided by the very conventional and poorly informative scheme of Henrietta Churkina.
Nevertheless, having even very rough expertise and such, very unsuccessfully made photographs of the tent, you can try to understand what exactly happened with the tent in the last moments of people's stay in it.
True, it is necessary first to carry out some reconstruction of its kind. For this, based on the well-known photographs, we transfer to the scale scheme those damages that can be considered. Although the exact dimensions of the tent of the "dyatlovtsev" are unknown, there is almost no doubt that it was sewn from two 4-person tents PT-4 (height of each 2.0 m, width 1.8 m, height of skate 1.8 m, height of the walls 0.8 m). If we assume this assumption to be correct, we can see that the tent of the dead group had a length of 4.0 m, a width of 1.8 m, a height of a ridge of 1.8 m, a wall of 0.8 m. In "full height" it was usually placed in the forest , and on the mountain slope or in a different windy place, the slopes for reducing the sail fell directly to the ground, i.e., the height decreased to 1.0 m. Although the photographs of the tent with the scaling ruler are unknown, but a photograph is known on which the chair is visible, standing just behind the subject. So you can try to get out of the situation, remembering that the main parameters of the chairs (the height of the seat and the width of the back) were standards during the Soviet era and were kept very strictly. There were three basic types of chairs (a chair for concert halls and rooms, a chair for sets of upholstered furniture and a chair for office furniture sets) and the frame that fell into the frame belongs to the category of office furniture. The width of its back along the axial lines of the sides is 40 cm.
These fragments of photographs of the cut-out tent of the Djatlov group allow us to judge not only the degree of damage to it, but also make a partial reconstruction of the sections visible on the right side of the entrance to the tent. Yellow dotted ovals in the presented photographs give out small incisions, large incisions (from the ridge to the wall) are not distinguished. The figure "1" on the central photograph shows the location of the hole in the ridge used to fix the latter with the support from the inside of the tent, perhaps the same hole was used for the suspension of the Dyatlov homemade furnace; the figure "2" indicates the loop through which the rope-extension, used to support the ridge, was passed.
Knowing this, and using the back of the chair as a "ruler", you can try to measure all visible damage to the tent of the tent facing the photographer, as well as their location. The result of this work can be seen in the diagram below. At once it is necessary to make a reservation that despite the striving for accuracy, the result contains the inevitable error associated with the difference in scales on photographs of the tent and the uncertainty of the correction factor in the transition from the first photograph to the second.
Rectangular isometric projection of the tent of the Igor Dyatlov group, indicating the cuts of the right (from the entrance) roof slope. The drawing is executed with preservation of proportions; next to the tent for greater visibility depicts a man complexed by Yuri Doroshenko in a standing and sitting position. The dashed lines show long incisions in the direction of the "ridge-side wall", solid fat ones are short incisions made for a purpose other than long ones. Their approximate sizes are "a" = 25 cm, "b" = 26 cm, "с" = 32 cm, "d" = 34 cm, "i" is supposedly a gap of 6.0-6.5 cm long, "f" = 16.5 cm, this gap was left by Slobtsov's ice pick on February 26, 1959; "g" is a section of an undefined length, because on the original photograph it is obscured by a wrapped piece of tarpaulin, one can only say about it that its length is not less than 19 cm and not more than 72 cm, "v" = 14.5 cm, "u" = 13 cm. Due to the insufficient quality of the original photograph, not all short cuts are shown and measured, especially in the far from the entrance of the tent part.
Nevertheless, we can verify the accuracy of the work done, comparing the results with the measurements made in April 1959 by the expert Churkina. It is not difficult to see that the cuts b, c and d are parts of the longest cut, whose length, according to the expert, was "approximately 89 cm" (in its act it is specifically stipulated that all dimensions are "approximate", although it is completely incomprehensible that it was difficult to measure them exactly). The sum of the lengths of these three sections is 92 cm (b + c + d = 26 cm + 32 cm + 34 cm = 92 cm), which corresponds well to the 89 cm length obtained by Henrietta Churkina in direct measurement. So the accuracy of the calculations is quite satisfactory.
An analysis of the results of the work done leads to very unexpected conclusions:
- The tent of the tent, turned down the slope of the Holat-Sahyl, is much more damaged than it can be concluded from the official documents of the investigation. The sketch of the expert Churkina does not give even an approximate idea of the number of cuts and tearing of the tent, their size and relative position;
- Slope damage is clearly divided into two categories: long incisions in the direction from the ridge to the wall of the tent (at least 6, in our sketch are shown in dotted lines) and comparatively small incisions near the ridge, grouped at opposite ends of the tent (painted in solid, fat lines);
- There is a gap in the central part of the ramp near the loop itself, which, it seems, does not correspond to the observation made above (in our sketch it is indicated by the letter "f"). But this damage is in no way connected with the events of February 1, 1959, since this gap was left by Slobtsov's ice pick when he tried to enter the tent immediately after it was discovered. On February 15, 2007, Mikhail Sharavin, answering the questions of Kuntsevich's researchers (from the "Dyatlovists Foundation") and Elder (from the "Center for Civil Investigation of the Dyatlov's Tragedy") quite definitely said this. He literally said the following: "There are two slits diagonally and down - this is certainly a slit made with a knife, but that's on the ridge of the tent, on the center, for example, there is another big hole - that we cut. There there is still some kind of flap lost, that's what we have done ... ";
- When cutting a durable tent, the most difficult thing is to pierce it with a knife. In the case under consideration, this problem was aggravated by a weak pull of the ramp, which was heavily sagged both under the influence of wind load and snow, and under its own weight (in the materials of the criminal case and the memories of the search engines nothing is reported about the rope passed through the loop in the middle of the ridge, and the skis , through which it was supposed to start, were found at the end of the tent, which makes one think that the horse was not supported by a rope). It is the difficulty to pierce the tarpaulin and explains the presence on the inside of the ramp of jabs and scratches, which Churkin reported in her act. Therefore, if a person who had made short cuts really intended to provide a quick exit through the ramp, he would cut it after piercing the tarpaulin until he got a cut of the required length. This is how long cuts were made from the ridge to the side wall. But in the case of short cuts along the ridge, we see a different picture: after making one short cut, the owner of the knife began to do next to him, and then the third. It is logical to assume that the purpose of these sections was not at all to ensure the release of people who were in the tent;
- In view of the foregoing consideration (on the difficulty of piercing a canvas with a tarpaulin), it is possible to assume with a high degree of probability that not only less than, but even more, time was spent on making seven short cuts, described by us, than for making six long ones. This consideration only reinforces the conclusion that the person who was cutting the tent (or people) was not guided by the goal of providing emergency leave of the tent by tourists inside;
- Do not forget that the person who made the cuts "a", "b", "c" and "d", was near the very exit at the end of the tent. If he really hurried to leave it, he had to stretch out his hand and, in one movement (as they say, "on the passage"), cut off the buttons on which the doors of the opening were fastened. Cut with a knife 4-5-6 buttons, even firmly sewn, a man with a firm hand will not deliver the slightest embarrassment and this operation would hardly require more than 10 seconds. As you know, at the end of the tent, at the entrance, a canopy from the sheet was protected, protected from snow, but it is obvious that the sheet was not able to prevent a person with a knife from cutting off the buttons. Instead, the strange owner of the knife methodically cuts the ramp.
So why in one case a man with a knife does not take into account the costs of forces and time makes relatively small incisions of 20-30 cm, and in the other long ones, one meter and more? There can be only one explanation: these sections served different purposes.
What are these goals? Well, with long cuts to prosecutors, it was all clear - they were inflicted by frightened people for an emergency leave of the tent. This answer, although far from being the only one and even hardly correct, the investigators even formulated.
But that's why short cuts of the ramp were made, powerful prosecutorial minds did not think. The investigators tried not to notice these cuts at all, as the expert Churkin did not notice.
All damage to the tent, except for one rupture (or incision), is concentrated on the slope facing the descent of a group of tourists along the slope of the Holat-Sahyl. If we assume that the center of the ridge was not supported by a rope - and there are no grounds otherwise, it turns out that the slopes were greatly sagging. The diagram given in the text clearly demonstrates what the tent would look like in this case. This scheme, although large, is still rather conventional, most likely, the deflection of the roof was much greater. Applying short slits to the sagging slopes, we will see that they "swim" down, descend, according to the slack of the ridge. Next to the figure is a figure of the man of the complexion of Yuri Doroshenko, i.e., a sports man of 180 cm in height and 55 cm in width of his shoulders. His height in the sitting position will be 95-99 cm (the value "walks" from the posture of a particular person). That is, a large man will literally rest his head in the tent's tent, and short incisions will be below the level of his eyes. This position of the cuts optimally provides control over the space below the tent, leaving no "dead zones" on the mountainside.
Short cuts were made by people who wanted to control the approaches to the tent from the bottom, from the valley of Lozva! This is especially clear when considering the positions of the cuts near the entrance: the cuts "a" and "b" form a real triangular window, and its original dimensions did not suit the owner of the knife, and he increased it with an additional cut "c". The people who settled in the tent were two, they were placed at opposite ends facing each other; the one that was near the entrance could watch the sector "north-east", and his partner, sitting at the opposite end of the tent - the sector "south" - "east". Together they followed the direction where the woodpeckers left, and at the same time everyone controlled the space behind the partner's back.
Perhaps there was a third one, who was engaged in inspecting things that had fled tourists. In any case, we know for sure that people in the tent were hampered by a heavily sagging horse - it clearly prevented the inspection of things and movements in the shadows. In order to support the hobby and solve this problem, someone from the people sitting in the tent undertook to trim a too long ski stick (140 cm), but abandoned this occupation, without completing.
For the sake of objectivity, it should be noted that the version of "window-slits" is by no means the only one through which researchers of the tragedy of the group Dyatlova attempted to explain the strange damage to the tent. There were other, according to which, short cuts were made in order to let air into the tent for people who were choking, or to check the thickness of the snow that hit the ramp and knocked down the rear end stand. More details of these hypotheses will be considered in that part of the essay, where various versions of what happened to the group will be presented; in the same place and prove that this explanation is meaningless. We can say that these are explanations from the category of those who "do not explain anything."
There is a tradition that the expedition to Sverdlovsk of the main Mansi shaman contributed to the disposal of hunters-mansi from suspicions of killing tourists. He allegedly managed to get a meeting with the secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union Andrei Pavlovich Kirilenko, who this shaman managed to convince of the complete non-participation in the tragedy of the group Diatlov. This is a tradition, since there is no evidence to support the reality of such a meeting. And the very appearance of a dense shaman at the reception to the local "Tsar and God" seems very, very doubtful. To get through on reception to the first secretary of the Regional Party Committee to the simple person in the postwar period was extremely difficult - the Soviet bureaucracy has already fully developed and lived according to its very uneasy rules. And for the secretary himself, such a meeting seemed to be "politically incorrect", because we should not forget about the next wave of persecutions in religious confessions in the USSR in 1958. It turned out that at the same time, while the Party Secretary-General, "dear Nikita Sergeyevich," from all sorts of tribunes, vehemently denounced and exposed "church obscurantists," the head of a large party organization allowed himself to meet with some spellcaster there! Such self-will could be regarded as disagreement with the course of the party and even a direct opposition to its point of view "the general line of the party on the religious question."
Comrade Kirilenko, being an experienced party apparatchik, could not fail to understand this. Therefore, we must admit that the probability of direct contacts between him and the Mansi shaman is vanishingly small.
The search for still unknown bodies of members of the Djatlov group was carried out in March 1959 with extreme strain of forces, both physical and emotional. Head of the search directly on the spot (on the slope of Holat-Syahyl and the pass), Colonel Ortyukov several times confronted the heads of the search operation with the question of suspending the works and transferring them to a later time (when the snow comes down). However, he never got permission for this. The bodies of the missing members of the group had to be found in the shortest possible time, for which the search was to be continued without interruption.
As already mentioned above, on March 3, a group of students from the UPI, led by Boris Slobtsov, left the search area. And on March 6, a group of Sverdlovsk alpinists, led by Abram Kikoyin, came to replace her. A few days later, on March 10, a group led by Karelin left the search area. This was not the last change of the composition, but we will not mention them in the future, since these did not influence the general course of the events of the replacement.
Until the middle of March (the exact date is unknown), the search camp was moved from the valley of the Auspiya River to the valley of the Lozva River. In other words, the camp was closer to the search area. This was done in order to save the strength and time of people forced to ski every day up and down the slopes for miles. The transfer was planned back in February, but then he was prevented from finding the first bodies.
The funeral of Yuri Doroshenko, Igor Dyatlov, Zina Kolmogorova, Georgy Krivonischenko and Rustem Slobodin took place on March 9 in Sverdlovsk. The four dead found the last peace in the Mikhailovskoye cemetery, and one - George Krivonischenko - was buried in Ivanovskoye, although his parents did not object to his son being buried with the others. Around the funeral, the authorities let in a lot of fog and omissions, which greatly overshadowed the already unpleasant event. At first the CPSU tried to persuade the relatives of the dead to bring the bodies found in Ivdel quickly and quietly, and members of the party were reminded of "party conscience" and unequivocally threatened with organizational decisions for their intransigence. When it became clear that all attempts to obtain consent to the funeral in Ivdel did not yield the desired result, the party bonzes retreated and allowed funerals in Sverdlovsk. However, the commies did not manage to organize and conduct the funeral activities properly. On the orders of the head of the political commissar "Polytekh" Kasukhin, from the information stand, two placards broke off, notifying about the place and time of the civil funeral. This was done, apparently, in order to limit the number of persons who came to part with the deceased. Nevertheless, in the tenth corps of the Polytech, where coffins were put up, and around him on March 9, 1959, a crowd of thousands gathered. On the territory of the Mikhailovskoye cemetery, the funeral procession was launched not by usual order through the gate, but for some reason from the adjacent street, for which it was necessary to disassemble the fence. In general, the organizers of the funeral showed their own boorish attitude to people.
The fact that the Soviet government has behaved with people so shamelessly and disrespectfully should not be surprised. As you know, the Soviet Union did not sink ships, aircraft did not fall and rockets did not explode, and only labor achievements, successes and exploits took place. Well, perhaps, here and there a little more survived remnants of the past (quite a bit!). Therefore, all the talk about catastrophes, social unrest and mass deaths was regarded by the authorities as "ideological diversion" and was stopped as quickly and harshly as possible. The authorities were pathologically afraid of any negative information that could at least indirectly cast a shadow on it and make it doubt that the Soviet government is the best in the world. Hence the irrational fear of saying or letting the superfluous, which determined the logic of many actions of party and Soviet leadership at all levels of the bureaucratic hierarchy in the USSR. The death of Igor Dyatlov's group, it seems, in no way could discredit the CPSU and Soviet power, however, the authorities themselves did not consider it and tried to organize the March funeral so that they are less talked about in the city. It turned out to be stupid (as it almost always turned out in the USSR), since there were still a lot of talking about the dead students in Sverdlovsk, but besides that, many still had a feeling of resentment against the unfair attitude of the powerful to the tragedy.
Next to the members of the group Dyatlov at the Mikhailovskoye cemetery, another student of Sverdlovsk Polytech, named Nikitin, who died of bilateral pneumonia, was soon buried. He studied at the first year of the institute, did not take a great interest in tourism, and most likely did not even know the members of the Djatlov group. Nikitin was a country boy from a very poor family; his family could not pay for the transportation of the body to his homeland, and therefore it was decided to betray his land in Sverdlovsk. To the history of the death of tourists on the pass Nikitin's death has not the slightest relation.
On March 13, the Sverdlovsk Regional Executive Committee approved a plan for prospecting in the Lozvy Valley. According to this document, the main part of the search group (20 people) was formed from the UPI students. They were reinforced by a group of sappers from the Urals Military District (10 men). Regional ATC also sent a group of 10 people to the search. and assumed the responsibility for the material supply of the participants in the search operation. The transport was entrusted to the military, for which the search engines assigned 2 Mi-4 helicopters based in Ivdel. The organization of communication with the search group at the pass was entrusted to the Northern Expedition of the Ural Geological Administration.
On Friday, March 27, 1959, the Bureau of the Regional Committee of the CPSU held a special meeting devoted to the course of the search operation. Details of him are unknown.